CASE TITLE:
Sashibhusan Das Vs Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu & Anr
JUDGEMENT DATE :
20TH MAY, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik and Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar
PARTIES :
Petitioner: Sashibhusan Das
Respondent: Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu & Anr
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Section 25 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (OHRE Act)
SUBJECT
The Orissa High Court has clarified that unlawful possession of property, which does not confer any right, cannot be justified solely on the grounds that the legislation authorising eviction is prospective in nature.
BRIEF FACTS
- A proceeding under Section 25 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (OHRE Act) in respect of the schedule land was initiated at the request of Opposite Party No. 1.
- In the aforementioned proceeding, the petitioner challenged the action on the grounds that the possession was unauthorised and that the land settled with OP No. 1 was illegal.
- However, the OP No. 2, in front of whom evidence was laid, eventually concluded that OP No. 1 is a perpetual minor (a deity), and thus the deity's rights cannot be taken away. With the aforementioned finding, OP No. 2 permitted the petitioner to be evicted under Section 25 of the OHRE Act. The petitioner never challenged the settlement.
- The petitioner contended that the OP No. 2 held his possession as unlawful and directed eviction by exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the OHRE Act, which was introduced in 1981 with effect from March 2, 1981, despite the fact that his vendor's vendor had obtained sanction under Section 19 thereof.
- Mr. A.K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the eviction under Section 25 of the OHRE Act could not have been initiated because the possession dates back to before March 2, 1981, when the amended Act went into effect. In support of this claim, he cited a High Court decision in Duryodhan Samal v. Uma Dei & Ors., 60 (1985) CLT 360. According to him, the amended Act is prospective in nature because it went into effect in 1981 and thus cannot be applied retroactively because the petitioner's possession was prior to it.
- It was also stated that the original tenant had the right of occupancy and that possession was continued until it came into the hands of the petitioner through a purchase.
- The eviction could not have been directed because the occupation had been continuous and had been sanctioned by OP No. 2. In the alternative, the petitioner claimed that, even if the possession was unauthorised, the petitioner's continuous and peaceful occupation of the schedule land resulted in the acquisition of adverse title to it.
- On the contrary, OP Nos. 1 and 2 justified OP No. 2's decision to evict the petitioner from the schedule land that was in his unauthorised possession. It was argued that the possession was still illegal at the time Act 2 of 1981 went into effect, and thus OP No. 2 committed no illegality by directing eviction.
- It was also argued that the sanction claimed by the petitioner (under Section 19) to be in favour of the vendor's vendor was not in accordance with the law in effect at the time. Furthermore, that was never worked out between the parties because no lease deed was executed as a result.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Court held that the petitioner's possession had to be lawful in order for the petitioner to lay claim over the schedule land, with a plea that such occupation on the date the proceeding was initiated was not unlawful for opposing eviction under Section 25 of the OHRE Act.
- The petitioner claimed that sanction under Section 19 of the OHRE Act was obtained, but the Court noted that no lease deed was executed between the parties inter se, so it was never worked out. The Court noted that the lease was required to be followed by a deed in accordance with Section 19 of the OHRE Act, which had not been executed between the parties.
- It was held that the lease in question was never acted upon because there was no such document later to the sanction under Section 19 of the OHRE Act. As a result, the petitioner's possession from an earlier date prior to the commencement of Act 2 of 1981 could not have prevented OP No. 1 from seeking his eviction from over the schedule land, the Court added.
CONCLUSION
As a result, the Court concluded that the proceeding under Section 25 of the OHRE Act before OP No. 2 was perfectly maintainable and could not have been rendered null and void on the grounds that the amended law could only be applied prospectively, with no retrospective effect. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
