DOLAGOVINDA SETHI Vs. KANIKA MUSEUM
LAWS(ORI)-1988-2-15
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on February 29,1988

DOLAGOVINDA SETHI Appellant
VERSUS
KANIKA MUSEUM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

INCOME TAX SPECIAL PURPOSES COMMR. V. PEMSEL [REFERRED TO]
VERGE V. SOMERVILLE [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL CHORAL SOCIETY V. INLAND REVENUE COMMRS. [REFERRED TO]
LOPES-BENCE JONES V. ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON [REFERRED TO]
IN RE SHAW (DECEASED) PUBLIC TRUSTEE V. DAY [REFERRED TO]
DELIUS WILL TRUSTS RE EMANUEL V. ROZEN [REFERRED TO]
INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING FOR ENGLAND AND WALES V. ATTORNEY GENERAL [REFERRED TO]
IN RE HOPKINS WILL TRUSTS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS V. SUBRAMANIASWAMI MAHIMAI PARIPALANA SANGAM [REFERRED TO]
HANMANTRAM RAMNATH V. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
DEOKI NANDAN VS. MARLIDHAR [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE BOARD RELIGIOUS TRUST PATNA VS. MAHANT SRI BISESHWAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
SOLE TRUSTEE LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKANTA DEB VS. COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAYAN JAI GOVIND VS. CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
RAM VS. PRABHU DAYAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KELVIN JUTE COMPANY LTD VS. KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-2-62] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

L.RATH. J. - (1.)These two applications under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek quashing of the orders passed by the Tribunal constituted under S.57-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 16 of 1960) declaring the Kanika Museum and the Rajendranarayan Botanical Garden, the opposite party No. 1 respectively in each of the cases, as charitable trusts of public nature with Raja Sailendranarayan Bhanja Deo as the trustee under S.2(24)(e) of the said Act and the properties claimed under each of the respective trusts as trust properties. So far as O.J.C. No. 150/81 is concerned, the facts are that an application was filed by the opposite party No. 1 through Raja Sailendranarayan Bhanja Deo, since substituted by opposite parties 1(a) to 1(c), before the Tribunal-cum-Subordinate Judge seeking declaration as trustee-holder of a religious/charitable trust of a public nature. In an accompanying statement to the application giving short history of the creation of the trust, the opposite party No. 1 contended that the applicant Sailendranarayan Bhanja Deo and his father late Rajendranarayan Bhanja Deo being very much interested in studying the various intellectual and historical aspects of rare objects of beauty such as works of art, trophies, historical documents and records collected by them and preserved in four principal rooms of the main palace at Raj Kanika, he established the trust in memory of his late father. The properties constituting the trust are being utilised for the upkeep and maintenance of the museum from the date of foundation of the trust being dedicated from the beginning, although a formal deed of dedication of the same was made on 31-12-71 and with the purpose of the trust as preservation of rare objects of historic importance for research and intellectual pursuit of life. During the hearing, two registered trust deeds were exhibited, the first executed on 12th Sept., 1970 creating the trust and declaring the properties described in the schedule thereto, Ac.25.005, as also such objects and records as would be permanently made over thereafter by the founder of the trust or the succeeding trustees, to become the properties of the trust. The second deed executed on 31st Dec. 1971 purported to vest some more properties of a total of Ac.80.92 in the trust with a recital that the trustee having found the income of the properties made over earlier not sufficient to manage the same, the subsequent vesting was made. Thus, the total property allotted to the trust was Ac.105.925. In support of the claim, the applicant also adduced oral evidence and exhibited three visitors' book volumes and some other documents, reference to which would be made later.
(2.)So far as O.J.C. No. 152/81 is concerned, the facts are that an application was made by opposite party No. 1 through the same Sailendranarayan Bhanja Deo, since substituted by opposite parties 1(a) to 1(c), claiming opposite party No. 1 Rajendranarayan Botanical Garden to be declared a charitable trust of public nature and himself to be the trustee thereof as contemplated under S.2(24)(e) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and the properties in the schedule to the application, a total of Ac.86.85, as trust properties. In the statement of facts appended to the application giving a short history of creation of the trust, the trust was claimed to be created for the purpose of advancing study, research and experimentation on botany, horticulture and agriculture and providing for such intellectual recreation as may befit the said objects of the trust. At the hearing, the registered trust deed executed on 8th July, 1965 by the applicant declaring the properties mentioned therein to constitute the trust properties was exhibited and certain other documents were also filed Besides, oral evidence was led by the petitioner in support of the claim.
(3.)The present petitioner was an objector before the Tribunal contesting the genuineness of the trusts on the plea of their having been created to defeat the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and that in fact, he along with others, was in cultivating possession of some of the lands included in the trust and had also filed application under S.36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act for declaration of occupancy rights. Besides, it was contended that some of the objectors had their residential houses on portions of the lands comprised under the trust and had filed applications under S.9 of the aforesaid Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.