Such a Head, upon notice has to deliver the possession of the acquired property and is entitled to receive compensation in the form of annuity. We would also like to mention that in the penultimate para, the High Court has expressed its displeasure and anguish over the averments made by respondent no. That in fact is the position even under the provisions of the Code. 1 in the additional affidavit dated 23-03-2012 where respondent no.

It would be apposite to take note of those issues at this juncture: The next argument is that the proviso to s. But does this amount to an infringement of Art. 1 even denied the fact that petroleum profits were not shared between the Government and the appellant after making the calculations with reference to benefit under Section 42 of the Act. In our opinion the answer to this question must be in the negative. In this background he laid stress upon the fact that Section 25A was inserted not for constitution of a common Managing Committee for all the religious or charitable institutions in the State but for constitution of a Managing Committee for each of the religious or charitable institutions of public nature.

In these batches of matters, thus, we are concerned with the appeals of the land owners. What the proviso does is to enable the tribunal to try any offence other than the scheduled offence with which the accused may be 84 658 charged and which would be ordinarily triable under the provisions of the Code. The State Government/U. Keeping in view the various submissions made by the writ petitioners in their petitions, the High Court framed as many as 17 issues or the points of consideration which had fallen for its discussion and decision.

According to him, the use of ˜slash (/) between the word Deories and the word Bordeories, in the background of scheme and provisions of the Act connotes the option to act as per factual situation obtaining in a particular institution. In our opinion, therefore, the challenge to the proviso in question cannot succeed. Development Board as well as many land owners have challenged the said Full Bench decision of the High Court. If the trial of the major scheduled offence under the Act is justified and valid the impugned proviso does nothing more than enable the tribunal to decide whether the accused is guilty of any minor or allied offence.

It is significant that the proviso leaves it to the discretion of the tribunal whether or not any other offence should be tried under the Act along with the scheduled offence charged against the accused in a given case. Insofar as special leave petitioners/appeals of the Government and Authority are concerned, they have already been dismissed. We do not think that here is any substance in this argument. Jaideep Gupta, ;earmed senior counsel referred to the various provisions of the Act to highlight that the scheme was to recognize the Head of the Institution in whom the control and management of the properties is vested under any enactment, grant or usages relating to the Institution or any scheme of management framed by a court under Section 92 of the CPC.

1 should have been careful in making such averments in the said additional affidavit which were contrary to the record, even if it was uncomfortable to respondent no. Besides there can be no doubt that the offences' other than the scheduled offences which may be included in a trial under the Act would be,minor or allied offences the proof of which would follow from the facts adduced in support of the major offences. It is, however, for the Court to decide whether the facts of the case justify invocation of original jurisdiction or it is a fit case for exercising supervisory jurisdiction To meet the aforesaid contention, Mr.

n(xiii) A combined application under both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be entertainable only when the court fees payable for invoking both the provisions have been paid in aggregate. If court fees payable for invoking only one of the Articles 226 and 227 have been affixed, the Court before dismissing the application on that ground may give option to the petitioner to choose only one of such provisions, if he does not pay the balance amount of court fees and the application should be treated accordingly.

2009 written by the MoF, Department of Revenue this fact is specifically admitted and, therefore, respondent no. In this context, considering that some of the religious institutions have only Deories whereas some like the Kamakhya Temple have their control vested totally in Bordeories, the legislature provided for election of ex-officio secretary either by the Deories or by Bordeories as the case may be. His further submission was to the effect that factually the claim of the petitioners that the temple of Shri Shri Maa Kamakhya requires daily worship/puja not only by the Bordeories but also by atleast two families of Deories, the Chandi Pathaks and the Supakars has been controverted by explaining that the daily worship/puja is under the management of Dolois who represent the Bordeories and it is only on some special occasions, once or twice in a year that the Chandi Pathaks and the Supakars participate as Shebaits.