The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 08. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5364 of 2021 Sardhanjali Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate -Versus- State of Orissa and others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A.C. Swain, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
Decision
ORDER 05.08.2025 Petitioner is grieving against the action of opposite party nos.2, 3 & 4 in coercing him to pay a certain sum of money as a pre-condition for issuing “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) in respect of subject land for the purpose of its development. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned action is bad in law, inasmuch as there is no due at all; petitioner’s predecessor bought the subject property pursuant to Temple Committee Resolution 01.12.2000 and secured two registered sale deeds both dated 24.01.2001; petitioner bought the subject property from him vide registered sale deed dated 22.11.2017; the answering opposite parties, more particularly opposite party nos.2, 3 & 4 are absolutely unjustified in raising the demand for issuance of NOC required by the local body for the grant of approval to development plan. Lastly, he submits that the Page 1 of 5 answering opposite parties are not justified in assuming that the subject sale deeds are null & void. 3. Learned panel counsel appearing for the answering opposite parties vehemently opposes the petition contending that the sale deeds are null & void, the Committee Resolution dated 01.12.2000 itself is without competence; the Jurisdictional Committee of the Temple has power to ignore conveyances of the kind, registered or not; if amount in demand is remitted, there is no difficulty in issuing the NOC. He took the Court through the provisions of Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 in support of his contention. So arguing, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: 4.1. There was Resolution by the Committee on 01.12.2000 at Annexure-2 to alienate the subject property at a minimum price of Rs.2,00,000/- suggesting negotiation to secure more in the interest of temple. The Committee fixed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide Resolution dated 09.01.2021 at Annexure-3. Accordingly, at that rate the remittance was made and the Administrator executed two sale deeds both dated 24.01.2001 making petitioner’s vendor the absolute owner thereof. Petitioner bought the property vide registered sale deed dated 22.11.2017. These facts are not in dispute. Salmond’s Jurisprudence, 12th Edition by Fitzgerald says that the ownership is a bundle of rights and one of them is the right to use property in a way the owner wants, subject to a law to the Page 2 of 5 contract. Petitioner being the owner wants to develop the property and therefore no restriction by way of denying NOC in the absence of statutory enablement can be mounted on him. 4.2. Learned panel counsel appearing for the temple and its authorities is not justified in placing reliance on the provisions of Section 16(3) of 1955 Act. This section reads as under: 16. Alienation of the Temple properties :– (1) No movable property of a nonperishable nature of which the Committee is in possession and the value of which is more than 1[fifty thousand rupees] and no Jewelleries shall be sold, pledged or otherwise alienated without the previous approval of the State Government. (2) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act no immovable property taken possession of by the Committee shall be leased out for more than five years or mortgaged, sold or otherwise alienated except with the previous sanction of the State Government. (3) Any transfer of immovable property recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath of Puri by any person including any institution being the Marfatdar of such property shall be absolutely null and void and of no force or effect whatsoever, unless 1[Chief Administrator] or any officer authorised by him in writing in this behalf, execute the deed of such trnasfer as one of the executant. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (Act 16 of 1908) no deed of transfer of any immovable property executed the provisions of sub-section (3) above shall be accepted for registration. in contravention of It is admitted by the panel counsel that there was a Resolution by a particular Committee and the Administrator has executed the sale deeds dated 24.01.2001 in favour of petitioner’s predecessor in title. Therefore, no much milk can be drawn from the above provision for rescuing the answering opposite parties. If at all any Page 3 of 5 money is due, the opposite parties may proceed against petitioner’s vendor. 4.3. When asked as to which provision of the Act permits the answering opposite parties to self-assume wideness of conveyances, there is no plausible answer from the panel counsel, especially when the subject conveyances are duly registered and suffered stamp duty. The Apex Court in Prem Singh v. Burbal, (2006) 4 SCC 69 has observed that a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17(1) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, if duly registered, will have a strong presumptive value and this would enure to the benefit of petitioner herein, obviously for he holding such a document. It hardly needs to be repeated that his vendor too held two such documents, both dated 24.01.2001. No appropriate proceedings have been instituted by the authorities under the 1955 Act for avoiding the subject sale deeds, nor for resuming possession of the property comprised therein. 4.4. It hardly needs to be stated that assuming wideness of a registered instrument comprising immovable property when temple is not in its possession, does not make legal sense. An arguably void instrument/document may infuse with life by the passage of time, when person claiming under such instrument has been in exclusive possession of the property. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned letter dated 13.03.2019 at Annexure-5, coupled with a Writ of Mandamus to opposite party nos. 2 & 3 to issue NOC to the petitioner within Page 4 of 5 four weeks on payment of any fees prescribed therefor, failing which the NOC shall be deemed to have been issued for all practical purposes and all authorities like the local bodies shall proceed accordingly, without insisting upon production of any such document. No costs. ( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge Anisha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANISHA NANDA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2025 19:22:33 Page 5 of 5