Orissa High Court
Shree Jagannath Deb vs State Of Odisha And Others on 8 November, 2024
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, V. Narasingh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Date: 12-Nov-2024 18:13:38
W.P.(C) No. 24937 OF 2024
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
Shree Jagannath Deb, Puri
...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others
....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate
(For Commissioner of Endowment)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 08.11.2024
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the judgment dated 21st September, 2024 (Annexure-1) passed in O.A. No.284 of 2023, whereby learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (for brevity 'the Commissioner')-Opposite Party No.2 rejected an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 19-A of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity 'the Act').
W.P.(C) No. 24937 OF 2024 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOODesignation: Senior Stenographer // 2 // Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Nov-2024 18:13:38
3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner has installed deities, more fully, described in the petition under Section 19-A of the Act in his residence. He is the marfatdar of the said Deities. Public have no access either to the premises of the Petitioner or to the bijesthali. The land in question was purchased in the name of the deities and consolidation ROR has been prepared accordingly describing the Petitioner as the marfatdar. The land in question is of 'Bagayat' kisam and it fetches no income. Thus, for the benefit of the deities, the marfatdar proposed to sale the property. Accordingly, a petition under Section 19-A of the Act was filed. The Inspector of Endowments, Puri I/C, Puri-II in his report No.122/Judicial.E.C dated 7th May, 2024 (Annexure-4) has categorically stated that on verification, the deities were found to be installed in a small room inside the residence of Jagannath Choudhary over Plot No.188/245 of Khata No.70 of Kisam Gharabari-I, which stands recorded in the name of Sri Sarat Chandra Choudhary S/o- Jagannath Choudhary. The sebapuja and worship of the deities is confined to members of Choudhary family. No outsider has either access for darshan or any role to play in the management of the deities. It is also stated that the land in question is recorded in the name of the deities. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that although learned Commissioner took note of the same, but most erroneously held that the statement of the public has not been taken and that the Petitioner has not specifically stated in its application, in whose W.P.(C) No. 24937 OF 2024 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer // 3 // Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Nov-2024 18:13:38 favour 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) was issued, in the event the O.A. is allowed. It is further submitted that the report of the Inspector is silent about the income from the land proposed to be sold. Neither P.W.1 nor O.P.W.1 stated regarding sebapuja and nitikanti as well as rituals being observed for the deities and expenditure incurred for the same. Yet, learned Commissioner rejected the petition under Section 19-A of the Act refusing to grant NOC in favour of the Petitioner to sell the land in question.
4. It is his submission that when the Inspector of Endowments, Puri has stated that the deities are private and public have neither any access nor perform sebapuja of the deities, learned Commissioner should not have raised any doubt with regard to nature of the deities. Further the Petitioner- Marfatdar is intending to sale the property for the benefit of the deities. Although P.W.1 has not specifically deposed about the expenditure incurred for the nitikanti and sebapuja of the deities, but no doubt has been raised by the Inspector of Endowments with regard to the same. Further, there is no evidence on record to come to conclusion that the land proposed to be sold yields sufficient income to meet the nitikanti and sebapuja of the deities. When there is no material contrary to the statement of P.W.1 available on record, learned Commissioner should have allowed the petition under Section 19-A of the Act.
4.1. There is no provision to record the statement of the public while adjudicating a petition under Section 19-A of the W.P.(C) No. 24937 OF 2024 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer // 4 // Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Nov-2024 18:13:38 Act. However, if learned Commissioner wished the opinion of the public to be recorded to test the veracity of the averments made in the petition, it could have directed the Petitioner to take out notice under Rule 4-A(2) of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959 (for brevity 'the Rules') and consider the statement, if any, recorded. Without adhering to the same, learned Commissioner rejected the petition filed under Section 19-A of the Act. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and direction should be issued to learned Commissioner for grant of NOC.
5. Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for Commissioner of Endowments supported the findings recorded by learned Commissioner. She submits that the Petitioner should have complied with the provisions of Rule 4-A of the Rules for proper adjudication of the petition under Section 19-A of the Act. Some relevant information, as pointed out by learned Commissioner should have been provided by the Petitioner in his application. He should have taken more care to see that the evidence is led in each aspect to consider its prayer. Thus, learned Commissioner has committed no error in the impugned order under Annexure-
1. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the Inspector of Endowments, Puri submitted his report under Annexure-4 clearly stating that the Petitioner-deity is private and the public have no access either to the premises or to the bijesthali of the deities. No public offer sebapuja to the W.P.(C) No. 24937 OF 2024 Page 4 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer // 5 // Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Nov-2024 18:13:38 deities. Sebapuja of the deities is confined to the family members of Choudhary family. It is also clearly stated that the deities are installed in a small room of the residence of Jagannath Choudhary. The residence, in which the deities are installed, stands recorded in the name of Sarat Chandra Choudhary S/o- Jagannath Choudhary. No material to the contrary has been placed by the Inspector of Endowments to raise any doubt with regard to nature of the deities. Thus, a declaration under Section 41 of the Act is not necessary in the instant case.
7. It further appears from the report of the Inspector of Endowments that the land proposed to be sold is recorded in the name of the deities. It is clearly stated in the petition under Section 19-A of the Act that the land proposed to be sold does not yield any income, it is lying fallow. Further it is stated that the sale proceeds shall be utilized for the benefit of the deities. There is no material to the contrary available on record. Rule 4- A(2) of the Rules provides that on receiving such application, learned Commissioner shall issue notice for information of general public together with copy of the application filed under sub-Rule (1) to be published in a conspicuous place of the Office of the Urban or Rural local bodies as the case may be under whose jurisdiction the property is situated and at such other place as learned Commissioner deems fit and proper, inviting objection to the said application to be received within one month from date of publication of such notice. Thus, learned Commissioner is required to ascertain as to whether Rule 4-A(2) W.P.(C) No. 24937 OF 2024 Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer // 6 // Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Nov-2024 18:13:38 of the Rules has been complied with before adjudication of the petition under Section 19-A of the Act on merit. That aspect appears to have not been considered by learned Commissioner. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Commissioner has committed an error of law and fact in dismissing the application under Section 19-A of the Act. As such the matter requires fresh consideration keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to learned Commissioner to adjudicate the petition filed under Section 19- A of the Act in O.A. No.284 of 2023 afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and strictly following the procedure laid down under Rule 4-A of the Rules and settled position of law.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (V. Narasingh) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 08th November, 2024/Madhusmita W.P.(C) No. 24937 OF 2024 Page 6 of 6