{"id":47866,"date":"1976-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976"},"modified":"2019-04-13T20:00:21","modified_gmt":"2019-04-13T14:30:21","slug":"hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976","title":{"rendered":"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1059, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 435<\/div>\n
Author: J Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, Jaswant<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nB. SAMITRA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nBENCH:\nSINGH, JASWANT\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1059\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 435\n 1976 SCC  (2) 277\n\n\nACT:\n     Orissa Hindu  Religious Endowments\t Act, 1951-Secs. 27,\n40,  44-Whether\t  appointment  of   trustees  by   Endowment\nCommissioner can be made under s. 27 without determining the\ndisputed points\t in sec.  40-Suo moto  inquiry by Endowments\nCommissioner under s. 40.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Some villages  made an application before the Assistant\nCommissioner of\t Endowments, Orissa, for appointment of non-\nhereditary  trustees  under  s.\t 27  of\t the,  Orissa  Hindu\nReligious Endowments  Act, 1951,  for Shiva  temple which is\nmore than  100 years  old and  possesses about\t24 acres  of\nland. A\t new temple  was constructed  in place\tof  the\t old\ndilapidated  temple   by  the\tmoney  contributed   by\t the\nvillagers. It  was alleged that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were\nmismanaging the affairs of the temple and were not regularly\nperforming the\tpuja or\t the duty.  An enquiry\twas  ordered\npursuant to which the Inspector submitted his report stating\nthat the  temple was  a public\ttemple and  that respondents\nNos. 1 to 3 did not show accounts to the Inspector and that,\ntherefore, names of 5 persons were suggested for appointment\nof  non-hereditary   trustees.\t A   proclamation   inviting\nobjections  regarding  the  suitability\t of  5\tpersons\t was\nissued. After  making a\t summary enquiry  in the presence of\nthe  villagers\t including  respondents\t Nos.  1  to  3\t the\nAdditional Assistant  Commissioner passed  an order  holding\nthat the  institution was  a public one and appointed 5 non-\nhereditary trustees under s. 27 of the Act. He, however, did\nnot record  any finding whether respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were\nhereditary trustees  or not. A revision Application filed to\nthe Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments failed.\n     Respondent Nos.  I to  3 filed  a writ  petition in the\nHigh Court  contending that the order of appointment of non-\nhereditary trustees  under s.  27 of the Act encroached upon\nthe property  rights of\t the respondents  and  were  without\njurisdiction and void having been passed without determining\nunder s.  41 of\t the Act as to whether the institution was a\nprivate or  a public  one and without further determining as\nto whether the respondent were hereditary trustees.\n     The appellants contended before the High Court that the\nprovisions of  s. 27  were independent\tand that it could be\ninvoked without prior determination of the question under s.\n41. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that s.\n27 should  be applied  only where in respect of the disputed\ninstitution there  had been  a Prior  determination  of\t the\ncontroversial rights  mentioned in s. 41 and that before the\nAssistant Endowments  Commissioner could proceed under s. 27\nof-  the  Act  to  assess  non-hereditary  trustees  it\t was\nnecessary for  him to come to a finding that the institution\nwas a  public one  and there  were  no\thereditary  trustees\nthereof in  existence and in order to come to such a finding\nhe should  have completed  an  enquiry\tunder  s.  41  which\ncoupled with  s. 44 provided for a judicial determination of\nthese very questions.\n     Under  s.\t41  in\tcase  of  a  dispute  the  Assistant\nCommissioner has power to enquire into and decide whether an\ninstitution is\ta public religious institution and whether a\ntrustee holds  office as  a hereditary trustee. Under s. 27,\nthe  Assistant\t Commissioner  has  power  to  appoint\tnon-\nhereditary trustees in respect of each religious institution\nin cases where there are no hereditary trustees,\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The Assistant  Commissioner can\tappoint non-\nhereditary trustees  under s.  27 of  the Act only where two\nconditions are satisfied :\n     (i)  that the  religious institution is not an excepted\n\t  one, and\n     (ii) there\t are   no   hereditary\t trustees   of\t the\n\t  institution.\n436\n     For the exercise of the powers under. s. 27, therefore,\neither there  should be\t no dispute about the two conditions\nor if  there is\t a dispute  a prior  determination  of\tsuch\ndispute under  s. 41 of the Act has to be made. Without such\npreliminary determination  an appointment  of non-hereditary\ntrustees under s. 41 since there is no specific prohibition.\n[444D-E]\n     2. Under  s. 27.  the enquiry is of a summary character\nin which  the affected\tperson does  not  get  a  reasonable\nchance of  presenting his  entire case\tand evidence  is not\nrequired to be recorded verbatim. It is otherwise in case of\nProceedings under s. 41 where the enquiry has to be judicial\nand elaborate. [442H. 443A]\n     3.\t It  is\t also  not  correct  that  a  duly  verified\napplication on\ta proper  court fee  is\t necessary  for\t the\ndetermination of  the questions\t enumerated in\ts. 41 of the\nAct. An\t enquiry can  be made  suo  moto  by  the  Assistant\nEndowments. Commissioner  for determination  of any  of\t the\ndisputes enumerated  in s.  41 since  there is\tno  specific\nprohibition. [444D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 128 of
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and  order
\ndated the  19th September,  1969 of the Orissa High Court in
\nO.J.C. No. 1759 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Govind Das, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Ex-parte for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     JASWANT SINGH,  J. This  appeal  by  special  leave  is
\ndirected against  the judgment and order dated September 19,
\n1969, of  the Orissa  High Court  in o.J.C. No. 1759 of 1968
\nallowing the  writ petition  filed by  respondents  1  to  3
\nherein and  quashing the orders. dated May 2, 1967, July 22,
\n1968, and  December S, 1968, passed under sections 27 and 68
\nof the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act 1951 (Orissa Act
\nII of 1952) hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act;.\n<\/p>\n
     Briefly stated,  the facts\t giving rise  to this appeal
\nare: on June 23, 1966, about 40 villagers of village Bantala
\nin  Nayagarh   Sub  Division   of  Puri\t District  filed  an
\napplication before  the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments
\nOrissa, for  appointment  of  nonhereditary  trustees  under
\nsection 27  of\tthe  Act  of  Shiva  Temple  known  as\t“Sri
\nLokenatheshwar Mahadev” situate in the said village alleging
\nthat villagers\tfrom  11  villages  worshipped\tand  offered
\n‘bhog’ to  ‘`Lokenatheshwar Deb’  installed  in\t the  temple
\nwhich is  more than hundred years old and possessed about 24
\nacres of  land endowed\tby The\tancestors of  the villagers;
\nthat a\tnew temple  in place  of the  old one which was in a
\ndilapidated condition  had been\t constructed with the labour
\nand money  contributed by  the villagers.  that\t marfatdars,
\nrespondents l  to 3  herein, were mismanaging the affairs of
\nthe institution\t and were  not regularly performing the seva
\nand puja  etc. of the said deity. On July 31, 1966. the said
\nrespondents were  directed to  submit  returns\tas  required
\nunder section 17 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     On August\t4, 1966,  the Inspector\t of  Endowments\t was
\ndirected to make an enquiry and to submit a report regarding
\nthe allegations\t made by the said villagers; Pursuant to the
\nsaid directions,  the  Inspector  submitted  his  report  on
\nSeptember 6, 1966, stating inter alia that the.\n<\/p>\n
437<\/span><\/p>\n
temple\twas   a\t public\t  temple  which\t had  been  recently
\nconstructed  by\t the  villagers\t and  marfatdars;  that\t the
\nvillagers of  Bantala an marfatdars came from one family and
\nthe persons  managing the institution did not receive notice
\nfrom him  nor showed  him the  accounts and  suggesting\t the
\nnames of five persons for appointment as trustees.\n<\/p>\n
     On November 4, 1966, a proclamation inviting objections
\nregarding  the\tsuitability  of\t persons  suggested  by\t the
\nInspector for  appointment as  non-hereditary  trustees\t was
\nissued to  which the aforesaid respondents objected claiming
\nthat the  institution was  a private  one and  even if it be
\nheld to\t be a  public religious\t institution, they  were the
\nhereditary trustees.\n<\/p>\n
     After making  a summary  enquiry in the presence of the
\nvillagers including  respondents  1  to\t 3,  the  Additional
\nAssistant Commissioner\tof Religious  Endowments  passed  an
\norder on  May 2.  1967, holding C that the institution was a
\npublic one and appointing five non-hereditary trustees under
\nsection 27  of the  Act. The Additional Assistant Endowments
\nCommissioner did  not, however,\t record any  finding whether
\nthe respondents 1 to 3 were hereditary trustees or not.\n<\/p>\n
     Aggrieved by  this order,\trespondents 1 to 3 preferred
\non May\t15. 1967  a revision  application under section 9 of
\nthe  Act  before  the  1  Commissioner\tof  Hindu  Religious
\nEndowments,  Orissa,  Bhubaneswar.  On\tMay  27,  1967,\t the
\nappointed trustees  filed a petition under section 68 of the
\nAct for\t obtaining possession  of the  institution  and\t its
\nendowments from\t respondents 1\tto 3.  On November 10. 1967,
\nrespondents 1  to 3 filed a petition under section 41 of the
\nAct claiming  that the institution was a private one. It was
\nalternatively claimed  by the  said respondents that even if
\nthe temple  be held to be a public one they could not but be
\nheld to be hereditary trustees.\n<\/p>\n
     On July  22,  1968,  an  order  directing\tdelivery  of
\npossession of  the institution\tand its\t endowments  to\t the
\nappointed trustees was passed under section 68 of the Act by
\nthe  Assistant\t Commissioner  of   Endowments,\t Orissa.  On
\nDecember S,  1968, the\taforesaid revision application filed
\nby respondents\t1 to  3 was dismissed by the Commissioner of
\nHindu Religious\t Endowments and\t the Inspector of Endowments
\nwas directed  to execute the writ of delivery of possession.
\nOn December  26, 1968,\tthe Inspector  of Endowments  made a
\nreport saying that the writ had been executed and possession
\nas directed  had been delivered to the appointed trustees on
\nDecember 11, 1968.\n<\/p>\n
     On December  23,  1968  respondents  1  to\t 3  filed  a
\npetition under\tArticles 226  and 227  of the  Constitution,
\nbeing O.J.C.  No. 1759\tof 1968,  before the  High Court  of
\nJudicature, Orissa,  challenging the  aforesaid orders dated
\nMay 2,\t1967, July 22, 1968 and December S, 1968 and praying
\nthat the  said orders be quashed. on the said writ petition,
\nit was\tcontended by  respondents 1  to 3 that the aforesaid
\norders dated  May 2, 1967 passed by the Additional Assistant
\nEndowments Commissioner\t appointing non-hereditary  trustees
\nof the\tinstitution under  section 27  of the  Act and order
\ndated July  22. 1968  passed  by  the  Assistant  Endowments
\nCommissioner  directing\t  delivery  of\t possession  of\t the
\ninstitution and its properties to the non-hereditary
\n438<\/span>
\ntrustees under\tsection 68  of the  Act encroached  upon the
\nproperty  rights   of  the   respondents  and  were  without
\njurisdiction and void having been passed without determining
\nunder section  41 of  the Act  as to whether the institution
\nwas  a\t private  or   a  public  one  and  without  further
\ndetermining as\tto whether  the respondents  were hereditary
\ntrustees.\n<\/p>\n
     The said  writ petition  was contested on behalf of the
\nappellants on  the grounds that the scheme of the Act showed
\nthat provisions\t of section  27 of the Act were independent;
\nthat the exercise of` the power under section 27 was subject
\nto final decision m appropriate proceedings under section 41
\nof the\tAct and\t that it  was erroneous\t to contend that the
\nprovisions of  section 27 could not be invoked without prior
\ndetermination of the aforesaid questions under section 41 of
\nthe  Act.  lt  was,  however,  conceded\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants at  the hearing  of the  writ petition before the
\nHigh Court  that the  impugned orders could not be supported
\nand were  liable to be quashed as even a summary enquiry had
\nnot been  made before appointment of non-hereditary trustees
\nunder section  27 of the Act. It was also conceded on behalf
\nof  the\t appellants  that  as  an  order  under\t section  27
\nencroached upon\t the property  rights of respondents 1 to 3-
\nand even  a summary  1) enquiry\t is required  to be  made by
\nobserving  the\tprinciples  of\tnatural\t justice,  the\tsaid
\nrespondents should  have been  given a\tfull opportunity  to
\nsubstantiate their  case to  the effect that the institution
\nand its\t properties were  private and  they were  hereditary
\ntrustees. It  was, however,  strongly contested on behalf of
\nthe appellants that the stand of respondents 1 to 3 that the
\norders dated  May 2,  1967 and\tJuly 22,  1968 could  not be
\npassed\twithout\t  prior\t determination\t of  the   aforesaid
\nquestions under section 41 of the Act was not correct.\n<\/p>\n
     After examining  the relevant provisions of the Act and
\nthe  Rules   and  taking   into\t account  the  ,  fact\tthat
\nrespondents 1  to 3  had not been afforded an opportunity to
\nsubstantiate their  case and no evidence had r been taken by
\nthe Assistant Endowments Commissioner which might have prima
\nfacie gone to show that the institution was a public one and
\nthe said  respondents were not hereditary trustees, the High
\nCourt held  that  the  concession  made\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants  herein  was\t well  bounded;\t that  it  would  be
\nreasonable to  confine the application of section 27 only to
\ncases where  in respect\t of the\t disputed institution, there
\nhad been  a prior  determination of the controversial rights
\nmentioned in  section  41  and\tthat  before  the  Assistant
\nEndowments Commissioner\t could proceed\tunder section  27 of
\nthe Act\t to appoint nonhereditary trustees in respect of the
\nreligious institution, it was necessary for him to come to a
\nfinding that the institution was a public one and there were
\nno hereditary  trustees thereof in existence and in order to
\ncome to\t such a finding, he should have completed an enquiry
\nunder section  41 which coupled with section 44 provided for
\na judicial  determination of  these very questions. The High
\nCourt further  held that  since marfatdari  right was itself
\nproperty  and\tthe  Act   had\tno  application\t to  private
\nendowments  and\t respondents  1\t to  3\twere  admittedly  in
\npossession of the institution and its properties, they could
\nnot be\tdivested of  the same  without a  finding  that\t the
\ninstitution  was   public  and\tthey  were  not\t hereditary.
\ntrustees,
\n439<\/span>
\nIt would  be advantageous  at this  stage to  reproduce\t the
\nultimate conclusions arrived at by the High Court:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Before  the\t Assistant  Endowments\tCommissioner
\n     proceeds under  section 27\t to  appoint  non-hereditary
\n     trustees in respect of a religious institution, he must
\n     first come\t to a  finding that  there are no hereditary
\n     trustees already in existence. In order to come to such
\n     a finding\the must\t first make an enquiry under section
\n     41, which\ttaken alongwith\t section  44,  provides\t for
\n     judicial determination of this very question, involving
\n     the property  rights of  a citizen,  by  the  Assistant
\n     Commissioner himself,  after notice  to the parties and
\n     taking evidence.  If no  determination of this question
\n     is made,  it will be open to the Assistant Commissioner
\n     to start  an enquiry  under section  41 suo motu. It is
\n     only after\t the completion of the enquiry under section
\n     41 that he can come to a finding about the existence or
\n     otherwise of hereditary trustees and only thereafter he
\n     can proceed  to appoint  non-hereditary trustees. It is
\n     also open to him, in the course of the proceeding under
\n     section 41,  to pass  interim orders for preserving the
\n     institution and  its  properties  and  also  for  safe-
\n     guarding the  rights of  the  aggrieved  party  pending
\n     final  determination  of  the  controversy.  Any  order
\n     passed straightaway  under section\t 27  which  has\t the
\n     effect of\tdispossessing  the  hereditary\ttrustees  of
\n     their property  without first  resorting to  an enquiry
\n     under section  41, would be illegal and contrary to the
\n     scheme of the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     At\t the   hearing\tof  this  appeal,  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants has\tre- iterated  the stand taken by his clients
\nin the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The short\tquestion that  arises for  determination  in
\nthis case  is whether  the Assistant Endowments Commissioner
\nhad jurisdiction  to proceed  under section  27 of  the\t Act
\nwithout a prior decision of the disputes about the nature of
\nthe institution\t and the  existence or\tother  wise  of\t the
\nhereditary trustees.\n<\/p>\n
     For a  proper determination  of the aforesaid question.
\nit is  necessary to refer to a few provisions of the Act and
\nthe rules  made there  under in\t so far as they are relevant
\nfor the purpose of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 1\t(2) makes  the Act  applicable to  all Hindu
\nPublic religious  institutions and  endowments. It  excludes
\nfrom its  purview Hindu\t private religious  institutions and
\nendowments.\n<\/p>\n
     Section  3\t  (xiii)  of   the  Act\t defines  ‘Religious
\nInstitution’ as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3(xiii). ‘religious\tinstitution’ means a math, a
\n     temple and\t endowments attached  thereto or  a specific
\n     endowment and  includes  an  institution  under  direct
\n     management of the State Government .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A ‘religious endowment’ is defined in section 3(xii) as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3(xii). ‘religious endowment’ or endowment’ means
\n     all property belonging to or given or endowed for
\n440<\/span>
\n     the support of maths or temples or given or endowed for
\n     the performance  of any  service or  charity  connected
\n     there with\t or of\tany  other  religious  charity,\t and
\n     includes the  institution concerned  and  the  permises
\n     thereof and  also all  properties used for the purposes
\n     or\t benefit   of  the   institution  and  includes\t all
\n     properties acquired  from the  income  of\tthe  endowed
\n     property.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     …………………………..
\n     Section 27 of the Act provides as under :-
\n\t  “27 (1)  . The  Assistant Commissioner  shall,  in
\n     cases where  there is  no hereditary  trustee,  appoint
\n     non-hereditary trustees  in respect  of each  religious
\n     institution other\tthan maths  and specific  endowments
\n     attached thereto,\tand in\tmaking such appointments the
\n     Assistant Commissioner  shall have\t due regard  to\t the
\n     claims  of\t  persons   belonging\tto   the   religious
\n     denomination for  whose benefit the said institution is
\n     chiefly maintained.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 41 of the Act runs thus:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “41. (1)  In\tcase  of  a  dispute  the  Assistant
\n     Commissioner shall\t have  power  to  enquire  into\t and
\n     decide the following disputes and matters:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  whether an  institution is a public religious
\n\t       institution;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  whether an institution is a temple or a math;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c)  whether a  trustee holds\t or held office as a
\n\t       hereditary trustee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d)  whether any property or money is of religious
\n\t       endowment or specific endowment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (e)  ……………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (f)  ……………….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (g)  ……………..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that  the burden\tof proof  in all disputes or
\nmatters covered\t by clauses  (a) and  (d) shall\t lie on\t the
\nperson\tclaiming  the  institution  to\tbe  private  or\t the
\nproperty or  money to  be other\t than that  of\ta  religious
\nendowment or specific endowment as the case may be”.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 44\t which\tmakes  provision  for  appeals\truns
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “44. (1)  Any person aggrieved by any order passed
\n     by the  Assistant Commissioner  under section 41 or sub
\n     sections (1)  and (6)  of section 42 or section 43 may,
\n     with in  thirty days  from the  date of  receipt of the
\n     order under  section 41  or section 43 or from the date
\n     of the publication of the order under section 42 as the
\n     case may be, appeal to the Commissioner.
\n\t  “(2) Any  party aggrieved  by\t the  order  of\t the
\n     Commissioner under sub-section (1) or under sub-section
\n     (1) or
\n441<\/span>
\n     (6) of  section 42\t may appeal to the High Court within
\n     thirty days  from the  date of the order or publication
\n     there of as the case may be.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 68\t deals with  delivery  of  possession  of  a
\nreligious institution,\tits record,  accounts and properties
\nto its trustee or executive officer.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 73\t which bars  the  jurisdiction\tof  ordinary
\ncourts lays  down that\tno suit or other legal proceeding in
\nrespect of  the administration of a religious institution or
\nin respect  of any  matter or  dispute\tfor  determining  or
\ndeciding which\tprovision  is  made  in\t the  Act  shall  be
\ninstituted in  any  court  of  law,  except  under,  and  in
\naccordance with, the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 74\t which relates to the procedure at enquiries
\nand appeals and service of notice is in these terms:- C
\n\t  “74(1) In  relation to  all proceedings before the
\n     Commissioner or  the Assistant Commissioner, the orders
\n     in pursuance  of which are under the provisions of this
\n     Act appealable  to the  High Court, the Commissioner or
\n     the ., Assistant Commissioner as the case may be, shall
\n     have the  powers vested  in a  court under\t the Code of
\n     Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of
\n     the following matters:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a)  discovery and inspection;\n<\/p>\n
\t  (b)  enforcing the  attendance of  witnesses,\t and
\n\t       requiring the deposit of their expenses;\n<\/p>\n
\t  (c)  compelling the production of documents; E\n<\/p>\n
\t  (d)  examining witnesses on oath,\n<\/p>\n
\t  (e)  granting adjournments;\n<\/p>\n
\t  (f)  reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and\n<\/p>\n
\t  (g)  issuing commissions  for the  examination  of
\n\t       witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
\t  and may  summon and  examine suo  motu any  person
\n     whose evidence  appears to him to be material and shall
\n     be deemed\tto be  a Civil\tCourt within  the meaning of
\n     sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n     1898,
\n\t  (2)  The   Commissioner    and    the\t   Assistant
\n\t       Commissioner shall  with resect\tto all\tsuch
\n\t       proceedings be  deem ed\tto be persons acting
\n\t       judicially within the meaning of the Judicial
\n\t       officers Protection Act, 1 850. G
\n\t  (3)  The Court hearing on appeal from the order of
\n\t       the Commissioner\t may direct  further enquiry
\n\t       or modify  or set  aside such  order  as\t the
\n\t       Court may  deem fit; and unless the appeal is
\n\t       summarily dismissed the Commissioner shall be
\n\t       given an\t opportunity of\t being heard  before
\n\t       the order passed by him is interfered with in
\n\t       any manner;  provided that  the operation  of
\n\t       the order  of the  Commissioner shall  not be
\n\t       stayed pending the disposal of the appeal”.\n<\/p>\n
442<\/span><\/p>\n
     76(1) confers  on the State Government general power of
\nmaking rules  to carry out all or any of the purposes of the
\nAct. Sub-section  (2) of the section specifically enumerates
\nthe matters  with respect to which the rules can be made and
\nclause (d)  thereof enables  the State\tGovernment  to\tmake
\nrules  regarding   holding  of\t enquiries,  summoning\t and
\nexamination of witnesses and production of documents.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 43  of the Rules framed under section 76(d) of the
\nAct provides: –\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In  relation\t  to  all   proceedings\t before\t the
\n     Commissioner  or  the  Assistant  Commissioner  against
\n     whose orders an appeal lies to the High Court under the
\n     provisions\t of   the  Act,\t  the  Commissioner  or\t the
\n     Assistant Commissioner  as the case may be shall follow
\n     the provisions  of the Civil Procedure Code, the Indian
\n     Evidence Act  and the G.R.C.O. Of the Orissa High Court
\n     as far  as practicable  and in  so far  as y  they\t are
\n     consistent with  the Act  and the Rules. In every other
\n     case the enquiry will always be of a summary nature and
\n     shall be  conducted as  in respect\t of suits  of  small
\n     cause nature with due notice to persons affected by the
\n     enquiry”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is important to note that the Assistant Commissioner
\ncan ap point non-hereditary trustees under section 27 of the
\nAct only  where two  conditions are  satisfied viz. (1) that
\nthe religious  institution is  not an  excepted one  and (2)
\nthat there  is no hereditary trustee of the institution. For
\nthe exercise  of the  power by\tthe  Assistant\tCommissioner
\nunder this  section, it\t is, therefore, absolutely necessary
\nthat either  there should  be no  dispute about\t the  public
\nnature of the institution and the non-existing of hereditary
\ntrustees or  in case,  there is a dispute about any of these
\nmatters, a prior determination of such dispute under section
\n41 of  the Act\thas  been  made.  Without  such\t preliminary
\ndetermination if  an appointment of a non-hereditary trustee
\nis made under section 27 of the Act and a direction is given
\nregarding delivery  of possession  of the  institution\tetc.
\nunder section  68 of the Act, it would be manifestly illegal
\nand  without   jurisdiction.  A\t  careful  scrutiny  of\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act\tmakes this  position amply clear. As
\npointed out  by the High Court. section 27 does not in terms
\nprovide that  Assistant Commissioner  should make an enquiry
\nas to  whether the  institution is  public  or\tprivate\t and
\nwhether there  are hereditary trustees of the institution or
\nnot. These  questions have  to be gone into under section 41
\nof  the\t  Act  which   specifically  deals   of\t  with\t the
\ninvestigation and  decision of\tdisputes in respect thereof.
\nConsequently, a\t prior determination  under section  41 that
\nthe institution is public and has no hereditary trustee is a
\nsine qua non for appointment of trustees under section 27 of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
     This view\talso gains strength from the fact that there
\nis a  marked difference\t as  regards  the  procedure  to  be
\nfollowed in  respect of proceedings under sections 27 and 41
\nof the\tAct. Whereas  an enquiry,  if- any,  in\t proceedings
\nunder section  27 of  the Act  because of the non-appealable
\nnature of  the order passed thereunder in view of section 44
\nof the Act is of a summary character in which the affected
\n443<\/span>
\nperson does  not get  a reasonable  chance of presenting his
\nentire case  and evidence  is not  required to\tbe  recorded
\nverbatim, it  is otherwise  in\tcase  of  proceedings  under
\nsection 41  of the  Act where the enquiry has to be judicial
\nand Elaborate  in view\tof the\tfact that  the\tparties\t are
\nentitled as  a matter of right to be heard in support of the
\nclaim  and   to\t adduce\t evidence  in  proof  thereof.\t(See
\nRamakrishna Padhy  v. Ramesh  Chandra Das  & Ors(1).  In the
\nlatter case,  because  of  the\tcomplicated  nature  of\t the
\nquestions involved  and\t the  appealable  character  of\t the
\norders that  may be  passed thereunder,\t the Commissioner or
\nthe Assistant  Commissioner has\t to act\t like a Court and is
\nrequired to follow, as far as practicable, the provisions of
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure, the Indian Evidence Act and the
\nG.R.C.O. Of  the Orissa\t High Court  in so  far as  they are
\nconsistent with\t the Act  and the  Rules. This becomes clear
\nfrom a conjoint reading of section 74 of the Act and Rule 43
\nof the Rules framed under the Act. It would also be relevant
\nto notice  that there  is no  Provision in section 27 of the
\nAct identical  to the  one contained in order 21, Rule 63 of
\nthe Code  of Civil  Procedure to the effect that the summary
\ndecision given\tthereunder would  be subject to the decision
\nthat may  be given  under section 41 of the Act. It has also
\nto be pointed out that successive determination of questions
\nunder section  27 and  41 of the Act is not possible in view
\nof the doctrine of res Judicata. It is also significant that
\nthe safeguard relating to appeal both on a point of fact and
\nlaw  (See   Sri\t Sadasib   Prakash  Brahmachari\t Trustee  of
\nMahiprakash  &\tOrs.  v.`The  State  of\t Orissa(2)  and\t the
\nintervention of the High Court which is available in respect
\nof orders  made under section 41 of the Act is not available
\nin case\t of orders  under section  27 of  the Act.  The non-
\navailability of\t the valuable  right of an appeal in respect
\nof an  order under  section 27\tof the Act is of fundamental
\nimportance and\tleads to  the irresistible  conclusion\tthat
\nsection 27  cannot exist  in isolation\tand determination of
\nthe aforesaid questions is necessary under section 41 of the
\nAct before non-hereditary trustees can be appointed.\n<\/p>\n
     There can.\t therefore, be\tno manner  of doubt that the
\nAssistant Endowments  Commissioner has\tno  jurisdiction  to
\nappoint a  non-hereditary trustee of a religious institution
\nunder section  27 of  the Act without prior determination of
\nthe questions  that the\t institution is a public one and has
\nno hereditary trustees.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  fortified in  our view  by the decision of this
\nCourt in  Sri Jagannnth\t Ramanuja Das  & Anr.  v.  State  of
\nOrissa.(9)  .  In  that\t case,\tthe  Bihar  State  Board  of
\nReligious Trusts constituted under the Bihar Hindu Religious
\nTrusts Act,  1950 (I of 1951) passed an order in exercise of
\nthe powers  conferred on  it under  section 59\tof  the\t Act
\nasking the  appellant to  furnish to  the Board\t a return of
\nincome and  expenditure of  the\t temple\t known\tas  ‘Salouna
\nAsthal’. The  appellant replied saying that the Asthal was a
\nprivate institution  and not  a\t religious  one\t within\t the
\nmeaning of  the Act; that the properties appertaining to the
\ntemple\tdid   not  constitute  a  religious  trust  and\t the
\nappellant H
\n     (1) A.I.R. 1959 Orissa 98.\t   (2) 22 (1956) C.L.T. 235.
\n\t\t (3) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 400.\n<\/p>\n
444<\/span><\/p>\n
was not\t a trustee within-the meaning of the Act. On getting
\nunfavorable answer, the appellant made an application to the
\nHigh Court  of Patna  under Article  226 of the Constitution
\nchallenging the\t demand which  was dismissed.  On the matter
\nbeing brought.\tbefore this  Court  by\tthe  appellant,\t the
\naforesaid order\t of the Board was quashed and the respondent
\nwas  directed\tnot  to\t  interfere  with   the\t  properties
\nappertaining to\t the ‘Salouna  Asthal’ without obtaining the
\nnecessary declaration under section 43 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Before concluding\twe would like to observe that we are
\nnot at all impressed by the submission made on behalf of the
\nappellants  that   if  the   interpretation  placed  on\t the
\nprovisions of  sections 27  and 41  of the Act by the Orissa
\nHigh Court is taken as correct, it would become difficult to
\nexercise effective  control on public religious institutions
\nas proceedings\tunder section  41 take long time. As rightly
\nobserved  by  the  High\t Court,\t the  courts  are  meant  to
\ninterpret the  law as it stands. It is not their function to
\nlegislate and  to imagine  difficulties. The argument cannot
\nalso  be   countenanced\t as  it\t overlooks  the\t explanation
\nappended to  section 7\twhereunder the Commissioner has been
\ngiven power  to pass  such interim  orders as  he  may\tdeem
\nnecessary for  the proper  maintenance,\t administration\t and
\nmanagement religious  institutions  and\t endowments  when  a
\ndispute concerning the same is pending.\n<\/p>\n
     We also find it difficult to accept the submission made
\nby counsel  for the appellants that in view of the fact that
\na duly verified application on proper court fee is necessary
\nfor determination  of the questions enumerated in section 41
\nof the Act, no enquiry under the said pro visions of the Act
\ncan  be\t  held\tsuo   motu  by\t the  Assistant\t  Endowments
\nCommissioner. The  fact that  it  may  be  necessary  for  a
\nprivate individual  to make  an application  on proper court
\nfee to\tthe Assistant  Commissioner for determination of any
\nof the\tdisputes enumerated  in section\t 41 cannot,  in\t the
\nabsence of  a specific prohibition, debar the said authority
\nfrom taking action suo motu under the said provisions of the
\nAct. This  is, however,\t a matter  with\t which\twe  are\t not
\nconcerned in  the present  appeal as  respondents 1 to 3 had
\nmade an\t application under  section 41\tof the\tAct in which
\nunfortunately no  proceedings were  taken by  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  foregoing reasons,  we are  satisfied that the
\nHigh Court  was right  in holding  that it  was\t only  after
\ncompletion of  the enquiry  under section  41 of the Act and
\ndetermination  of   the\t  questions   that   the   religious
\ninstitution was\t not public  and there\twere  no  hereditary
\ntrustees  thereof  that\t the  Assistant\t Commissioner  could
\nappoint non-hereditary\ttrustees and  pass orders  regarding
\ndelivery of possession to them of the institution.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n445<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1059, 1976 SCR (3) 435 Author: J Singh Bench: Singh, Jaswant PETITIONER: HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: B. SAMITRA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/02\/1976 BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT RAY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-13T14:30:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-13T14:30:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976\"},\"wordCount\":4102,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976\",\"name\":\"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-13T14:30:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-13T14:30:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976","datePublished":"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-13T14:30:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976"},"wordCount":4102,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976","name":"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-13T14:30:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindu-religious-endowments-ors-vs-b-samitra-ors-on-20-february-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindu Religious Endowments & Ors vs B. Samitra & Ors on 20 February, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47866","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47866\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}