Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951

6 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SMT. MARUA DEI @ MAKU DEI AND ORS.versusMURALIDHAR NANDA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 44630 November 1998Dismissed

The appellants sought a declaration that their family shrine, which originated as samadhis, was a private spiritual institution and not a public temple under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. The respondents contended that the shrine had evolved into a public temple where Hindu deities were regularly wor

BRAJA KISHORE JAGDEVversusLINGRAJ SAMANTARAY AND ORS.

2000 INSC 36328 July 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents claimed to be hereditary trustees of the Sri Sidha Baladev temple, asserting that they had acted as marfatdars since the founder's time and were recognized as such by revenue authorities. They sought a scheme under Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, which was dismissed, and l

K. ARJUN DASversusCOMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA & ORS.

2019 INSC 103917 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

K. Arjun Das, claiming to be a tenant of land belonging to the deity Sri Rama Laxman Sita Swamy Bije, applied under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 for permission to sell 4.255 acres of barren land. The Commissioner, after an inquiry, fixed an upset price of Rs.10 lakhs per acre, gave Das

HINDU PUBLIC AND ANR.versusRAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE AND ORS.

1999 INSC 6316 February 1999Case Partly allowed

The Hindu public sued Rajdhani Puja Samithi, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, alleging that the temples, mandap, library, shops and other structures on a 90‑year government lease constitute a public religious endowment. The Society argued that it was a secular body, that a society could

HARBHAJAN SINGH ETCversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 13154 December 2019Dismissed

The appellants, tenants of shops in a Gurudwara, challenged the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 on the ground that it withdrew the protection afforded to them under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 and violated Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the State

LORD LINGARAJ BIJE, BHUBANESWAR AND ANR.versusSH. NITYANANDA MISHRA AND ORS.

1995 INSC 3272 May 1995Dismissed

Lord Lingaraj, the appellant, let out agricultural land to Dr. Ramendu Ray in 1937, before the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 came into force. After Ray's death his widow Bhibhati succeeded and later transferred the land to the respondents. The appellant filed a Section 68 petition for possession which was

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search