SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v. SIDDHA MATH & ORS.

A apparently conflicting entries not only of different Lists but also of the same List and to reject that construction which will rob one of the entries of its entire content and make it nugatory."

B (emphasis laid by this Court)

In the light of the reasons assigned by us in answer to Point No.1 and held in favour of the Temple, there was no need for the Temple Committee to file claim proceedings under Section C 8-A of the OEAAct, 1951, in respect of its own lands which were already vested in it under Section 5 of the Temple Act,

1955. The suit lands vest in the Temple Committee itself. Thus, in view of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, the settlement of the suit lands in favour of the respondent Math cannot be sustained, as it is bad in law.

Answer to Point No. 3

32Copy pinpoint32. In view ofthe findings and reasons recorded on Point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the appellant Temple Committee, the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2009 passed in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2421 of 2000 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack is liable to be set aside and accordingly, we set aside the same.

33Copy pinpoint33. Since we have categorically recorded the finding both on facts and in law while answering Point No. 1 in favour of the appellant Temple Committee holding that the provisions of the OEAAct, 1951 have no application to the lands of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri, there is no need for us to pass an G order in favour of the Temple under the OEAAct, 1951 as the suit lands were already vested in favour of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri by virtue of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955.

SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v. 101 SIDDHA MATH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]

34Copy pinpoint34. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order:-

i) C.A. Nos.7729 of 2009, 7730 of 2009, 142 of 2010, 221 of 2010, 2981 of 2010, 3414 of 2010,3415 of 2010 and 3446 of 2010 are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07 .07 .2009 passed in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2421 of 2000 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack is hereby set aside. ii) We strike down the first part of the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the OEAAct, 1951, which pertains to the c properties of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri. iii) The notification dated 18.03.1974 issued by the State Government under Section 3Aofthe OEAAct, 1951 in so far as point No. (ii) is concerned, is also quashed by this Court, to the extent, it applies to the lands and estate of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri. iv) We make it very clear that the striking down of the first part of the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEAAct, 1951 as mentioned above and quashing of the notification referred to supra will be prospective and this judgment shall not be applicable to the settled claim of the claimants hitherto under the provisions of the OEAAct of 1951 in so far as the lands of the Lord F Jagannath Temple at Puri are concerned. v) In view of the disposal of appeals above-mentioned in favour of the Temple Managing Committee, C.A. Nos. @SLP (C) Nos. 9167-9168 of 2010 (filed by Sri Raghab Das Math) and C.A. No. 9627 of 2010 (filed G by Bauli Matha) are hereby dismissed.

v.i) No costs are awarded in these proceedings.

Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of. H