Orissa High Court
Sri Satya Sundar Maharathy vs Commissioner Of Endowments on 11 May, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 18024 OF 2025
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Sri Satya Sundar Maharathy
& others
...... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, Khordha.
2. Inspector of Endowments,
Khordha, I/C-Banpur, Dist:- Khordha
...... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioners : Mr, Manmaya Kumar Dash,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate,
(For Commissioner of Endowments)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 11.05.2026
----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 1 of 12
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioners, in this writ petition, seek to assail the judgment dated 28th March, 2025 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Commissioner of Endowments Odisha, Bhubaneswar in OA No.207 of 2023, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners under Section 19-A of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Act') for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) in favour of the Petitioners to alienate the property of the Deity Sri Raghunath Jew, Bije At-Rameswar, under Jankia Police Station in the district of Khordha, (for brevity, 'the Deity') was rejected.
3. The admitted facts, as revealed from the record, are that, the Deity is a private religious institution. The grandfather of the Petitioners, namely, Rama Chandra Jayasingh Maharathi had endowed certain immovable properties to the Deity for its Sevapuja and Nitikanti. Initially, the Deity was being worshipped in the residential house of the Petitioners. Subsequently, it was shifted to a place situated about 100 meters away from their residential house and was installed in a temple. A Brahmin Pujaka has been engaged to perform the Sevapuja of the Deity and he has been allotted with some landed properties by the family of the Petitioners towards his remuneration. The Deity has not been indexed and is being managed by the Petitioners' family.
3.1. The scheduled immovable property, which is intended to be alienated, yields no income to the Deity. Further, the temple of the Deity is in a dilapidated condition and a boundary wall is W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 2 of 12 required to be constructed around the temple for protection and safety of the temple. Hence, in order to meet such expenses, the scheduled property was intended to be alienated.
3.2. Accordingly, an application under Section 19-A of the Act was filed before the learned Commissioner of Endowments, which was registered as O.A. No.207 of 2023.
3.3. Upon receipt of the application under Section 19-A of the Act, the learned Commissioner of Endowments called for a report from the Inspector of Endowments. The Inspector of Endowments submitted his report on 03.01.2024 stating inter alia that the bijesthali of the temple is over Plot No.80/139 at village Rameswar under Tangi Tahasil in the District of Khordha. The temple is situated on the bank of river Malaguni, near a barrage. The public has free access to the temple for darshan and offering bhoga. He also indicated in the report that the Deity has not been indexed and that the temple is more than 100 years old. Apart from the principal idols of Lord Shri Rama, Lord Shri Laxman and Maa Sita, brass idols like Laxminarayan, Radhakrushna and Hanuman etc. are being worshipped in the temple.
3.4. It is also stated that though the public has access to the temple for darshan and offering bhoga to the Deity, the management and day-to-day affairs of the said Deity are being looked after by the Petitioners' family only, who are the Marfatdars. The entire day-to-day expenses of the Deity is being borne by the Marfatdars. The Marfatdars intended to alienate W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 3 of 12 some immovable properties of the Deity to meet the expenses for construction work and Sevapuja of the Deity.
3.5. After due notice on the application under Section 19-A of the Act, no objection was received by the Commissioner of Endowments. The Petitioners examined two witnesses on their behalf, who reiterated the contents of the application under Section 19-A of the Act.
3.6. Learned Commissioner of Endowments, expressing doubt with regard to the requirement of the Deity for alienation of the immovable property and observing that since the public has access to the temple it is prima facie public in nature, rejected the application vide order under Annexure-4. It was also observed in the impugned order that the female legal heirs of Petitioners' grandfather were not impleaded as parties to the petition under Section 19-A of the Act. Thus, he held that maintainability of the application under Section 19-A of the Act was therefore doubtful. Accordingly, he rejected the petition under Section 19-A of the Act.
4. Mr. Dash, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that only because the public has access for darshan of the Deity, it does not become a public deity. He relied upon the case of Radhakanta Deb and others vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa; AIR 1981 SC 798 in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"8. Some of the circumstances from which a public endowment can be inferred may be whether an endowment is made by a person who has no issue W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 4 of 12 and who after installing the deity entrusts the management to members of the public or strangers which is a clear proof of the intention to dedicate the temple to public and not to the members of the family. Where, however, it is proved that the intention of the testator or the founder was to dedicate the temple merely for the benefit of the members of the family or their descendants, the endowment would be of a private nature.
xx xx xx
12. In the case of Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das [(1971) 1 SCC 574: AIR 1971 SC 2057; (1971) 3 SCR 680], this Court laid down some important tests to determine the nature of the endowment. In this connection, the following observations need specific mention:
"Therefore, evidence that sadhus and other persons visiting the temple are given food and shelter is not by itself indicative of the temple being a public temple or its properties being subject to a public trust.
Evidence that the Mahants used to celebrate Hindu festivals when members of the public used to attend the temple and give offerings and that the public were admitted to the temple for darshan and worship is also not indicative of the temple being one for the benefit of the public.... The fact that members of the public used to come to the temple without any hindrance also does not necessarily mean that the temple is a public temple, for members of the public do attend private temples... Yet, the Privy Council held that the general effect of the evidence was that the family had treated the temple as family property and the mere fact of the members of the public having come to the temple and having made offerings and the mela having been held which gave popularity to the temple and increased its esteem in the eyes of the public and the fact that they were never turned away W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 5 of 12 were not enough to hold the temple and the properties as a public trust.
*** Thus, the mere fact of the public having been freely admitted to that temple cannot mean that courts should readily infer therefrom dedication to the public. The value of such public user as evidence of dedication depends on the circumstances which give strength to the inference that the user was as of right."
15. Thus, on a conspectus of the authorities mentioned above, the following tests may be laid down as providing sufficient guide-lines to determine on the facts of each case whether an endowment is of a private or of a public nature:
(1) Where the origin of the endowment cannot be ascertained, the question whether the user of the temple by members of the public is as of right; (2) The fact that the control and management vests either in a large body of persons or in the members of the public and the founder does not retain any control over the management. Allied to this may be a circumstance where the evidence shows that there is provision for a scheme to be framed by associating the members of the public at large;
(3) Where, however, a document is available to prove the nature and origin of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that the control and management of the temple is retained with the founder or his descendants, and that extensive properties are dedicated for the purpose of the maintenance of the temple belonging to the founder himself, this will be a conclusive proof to show that the endowment was of a private nature;
(4) Where the evidence shows that the founder of the endowment did not make W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 6 of 12 any stipulation for offerings or contributions to be made by members of the public to the temple, this would be an important intrinsic circumstance to indicate the private nature of the endowment."
4.1. It is his submission that since the Inspector of Endowments has categorically held that the management of the temple is with the Petitioners' family, the Deity cannot prima facie be held to be a public religious institution. Further, the Deity has not yet been indexed, as observed by learned Commissioner of Endowments. Thus, the finding of learned Commissioner of Endowments that the Deity prima facie appears to be a public religious institution is not sustainable.
4.2. He further relied upon the case of Tamala Das vs. State of Odisha and Others, reported in 2023 (II) CLR 310, wherein it has been held in paragraph 11 as under: -
"11. Our interpretation of sub-rule (3) in rule 4A is that prima facie view can be taken by the Commissioner on receiving objection. The view is necessitated by existence of objection. It follows that the rule contemplates, where there is no objection, the exercise of taking a prima facie view, provided for by sub-rule (3), becomes unnecessary. In other words, on receiving the objection and after reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Commissioner can be prima facie satisfied that the institution in question is not a public religious institution, for which no sanction under section 19 of the Act is required. He shall then grant 'No Objection' certificate in prescribed form. The provision in sub-rule (3) indicates three factors. The application is by a religious institution claiming to be a private one. Receipt of objection and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties given. The application was by petitioner, purchaser of the deity's land, not a religious institution claiming to be a private one. The second two factors are in conjunction. Hence, our view that in absence of objection, the exercise provided for by sub-rule (3) is not necessary. More so because, sub-rule (3) is worded in enabling the W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 7 of 12 Commissioner to grant 'No Objection' certificate in spite of objection filed."
4.3. He, therefore, submits that when no objection was received by the learned Commissioner of Endowments on the application filed by the Petitioners under Section 19-A of the Act, the Commissioner should have granted the NOC in the prescribed form in favour of the religious institution to alienate the properties. Further learned Commissioner of Endowments has not discussed whether the immovable property sought to be alienated yields any income to the Deity or not. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-4 and remitting the matter to the learned Commissioner of Endowments for fresh adjudication of the petition under Section 19-A of the Act.
5. Ms. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments, refuting such submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the entire immovable property of the Deity is intended to be alienated by the Petitioners, as would reveal from the application under Section 19-A of the Act and copy of the Record of Right appended to the said application. It is not stated in the petition as to how the Deity will be managed if the entire immovable property of the Deity is alienated. She further relied upon the case of Sri Antaryami Dash and others vs. State of Odisha and Another, reported in 2016 (II) ILR-CUT- 1021, wherein this Court has dealt in detail the manner in which an application under Section 19-A of the Act is to be adjudicated. It is her submission that the necessity for alienation of the immovable property of the private Deity as well as utilisation of the sale proceeds for benefit of the Deity, are primary ingredients W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 8 of 12 to be satisfied by the petitioners to get NOC under Section 19-A of the Act.
5.1. The petition under Section 19-A of the Act is conspicuously silent with regard to utilisation of the sale proceeds and the necessity for alienation of the immovable property of the Deity.
5.2. It is further submitted by Ms. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments that the burden of proof is always on the Petitioners, who make an application under Section 19-A of the Act to get NOC, even if no objection is received from the public. She further submits that the Record of Rights enclosed to the petition under Section 19-A of the Act, indicates that the entire property of the Deity is intended to be alienated after receiving the NOC. There is nothing on record to show that the Deity has other properties for its management. Hence, learned Commissioner of Endowments has committed no error in dismissing the application under Section 19-A of the Act. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the materials on record as and as well as the case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. In the application under Section 19-A of the Act, the Petitioners have given the details of the properties proposed to be alienated for the benefit of the Deity, i.e., for construction of the temple and to meet the expenses of Sevapuja and Nitikanti of the Deity. The report of the Inspector is silent about the details of the W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 9 of 12 properties of the Deity. The report of the Inspector also does not reveal as to whether the immovable property sought to be alienated yields any income to the Deity or not. Though the report of the Inspector reveals that the temple is about 100 years old, but the condition of the temple is also not stated in his report. There is also no material to show as to how the sale proceeds of the Deity are to be utilised for its benefit.
8. As held in Gopal Chandra Ramanuj Das V. State of Odisha & others; reported in 2021 (II) OLR 947, in W.P.(C) No.14407 of 2019 decided on 04.02.2020 (Sri Laxminarayan Thakur V. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha) and in Judgment dated 22.01.2024 passed in WP(C) No.15022 & 15020 of 2022 (Amaresh Das Vs. State of Orissa & others), that while granting an application under Section 19-A of the Act and issuing NOC for alienation of the property, no condition can be imposed as to how the sale proceeds is to be spent by the marfatdars of the Deity unlike an application under Section 19 of the Act in respect of a public religious institution. But, at the time of adjudication of the petition under Section 19-A of the Act, learned Commissioner is required record its satisfaction that the sale proceeds of the land sought to be alienated are to be utilised for the benefit of the Deity, as observed in the case of Sri Antaryami Das (supra).
9. Further, access of public for darshan and offering bhog to the Deity is not sacrosanct to treat it as a public religious institution. When the management of the temple is with the Marfatdars only and the Sevapuja as well as Nitikanti of the Deity are being performed by them, the Deity is deemed to be a W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 10 of 12 private one unless it is proved otherwise in accordance with law in appropriate proceeding. Rule 4-A of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959 makes it clear that while making enquiry to grant NOC, the Commissioner of Endowments should be prima facie satisfied that the Deity is not a public religious institution. In the instant case, admittedly, the management of the Deity is with the Petitioners and it has not yet been indexed.
10. Thus, it prima facie appears that the Deity is a private religious institution and an application under Section 19-A of the Act is maintainable. However, at the same time, the learned Commissioner ought to have made an endeavour to ascertain whether the scheduled properties were required to be alienated for the benefit of the Deity and whether the interests of the Deity is protected by alienation of the said property.
11. Learned Commissioner of Endowments failed to deal with these material aspects of the matter while adjudicating the petition under Section 19-A of the Act. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside.
12. Consequently, the matter is remitted to learned Commissioner of Endowments for fresh adjudication of petition under Section 19-A of the Act, if necessary, by calling for a further report from the Inspector of Endowments and by receiving evidence from the parties. The Petitioners may also be permitted to amend the pleadings of the petition under Section 19-A of the Act, if so advised.
W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Page 11 of 12
13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy shall be granted as per Rules.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 11.05.2026/Mona Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa W.P.(C) No.18024 OF 2025 Date: 13-May-2026 15:55:30 Page 12 of 12