Orissa High Court
(1) Sri Rajesh Ranjan Sarangi vs (1) Commissioner Of Endowments on 11 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2388 OF 2026
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
*****
(1) Sri Rajesh Ranjan Sarangi, S/o-Late Brahmananda
Sarangi
(2) Sri Debabrata Sarangi, S/o-Late Benudhar Sarangi
(Both are of Village-Nimishapur, Post-Bhagatpur, P.S.-
Tangi, Dist-Cuttack)
(3) Sri Gopinathjew Thakur Bije Nimishapur, Post-Bhagatpur,
P.S. Tangi, Dist-Cuttack
...... Petitioners
-Versus-
(1) Commissioner of Endowments,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda
(2) Inspector of Endowments, Cuttack
....... Opp. Parties
(3) Chaitanya Sadangi
(4) Gouranga Sadangi
(5) Gitanjali Sadangi
(6) Snehalata Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.3 to 6 are sons and daughters of Late Gopinath Sadangi)
(7) Madhab Sadangi, S/o. Late Dwarikanath
(8) Sibabrata Sadangi
(9) Chittaranjan Sadangi
(Opposite Party Nos.8 and 9 are sons of Late Bamadeb Sadangi)
(10) Jagamohan Sadangi
(11) Ashalata Rath
(12) Santilata Sadangi
(13) Harapriya Kar,
(14) Binapani Panda
(Opp.Party No.10 is the son and Opp. Party Nos.11 to 14 are the
daughters of Late Radhanath Sadangi).
(15) Sitikanta Sadangi
(16) Bichitrananda Sadangi
(17) Pradipta Sadangi
W.P.(C) No.2388 OF 2026
Page 1 of 11
(18) Sudhansu Sadangi
(19) Kalpalata Rath
(20) Charulata Praharaj
(21) Ranjita Kar
(Opp. Party Nos.15 to 18 are sons and Opp. Party Nos.19 to 21 are
daughters of Late Radhanath Sadangi)
(22) Hemanta Sadangi, S/o. Basudeb Sadangi
(23) Subrat Sadangi
(24) Damayanti Panda
(25) Sumitra Dash
(26) Lilabati Mishra
(Opp.Party No.23 is the son and Opp. Party Nos.24 to 26 are the
daughters of Late Benudhar Sadangi)
(27) Bijay Sadangi
(28) Akshaya Sadangi
(29) Usharani Sadangi
(30) Jyotirmayee Panda
(Opp. Party Nos.27 and 28 are sons and Opp. Party Nos.29 and 30
are daughters of Late Kulamani Sadangi).
(31) Soumya Santosh Sadangi
(32) Satya Sudipta Sadangi
(33) Sushree Srimayee Sadangi
(34) Smruti Sangita Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.31 and 32 are sons and Opp. Party Nos.33 and 34
are daughters of Late Hrushikesh Sadangi).
(35) Gopal Chandra Sadangi
(36) Priyadarshini Panda
(Opp. Party No.35 and 36 are son and daughter of Late Jayanta
Sadangi)
(37) Bharata Sadangi
(38) Sarat Sadangi
(39) Sumant Sadangi
(40) Sushant Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.37 to 40 are sons of Late Dushasan Sadangi)
(41) Artatrana Sadangi
(42) Srikanta Sadangi
(43) Sashirekha Mohapatra
(Opp. Party Nos.41 and 42 are sons and Opp. Party Nos.43 is the
daughter of Late Sanatana Sadangi)
(44) Keshab Sadangi
(45) Bimal Sadangi
(46) Nirmal Sadangi
(47) Sisir Sadangi
W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026
Page 2 of 11
(48) Mihir Sadangi
(49) Banalata Pati
(Opp. Party Nos.44 to 48 are sons and Opp. Party Nos.49 is the
daughter of Late Janardan Sadangi)
(50) Ganesh Sadangi,S/o.Late Ratnakar Sadangi
(51) Ranjan Sadangi
(52) Saroj Sadangi
(53) Niraj Sadangi
(54) Badal Sadangi
(55) Manoj Sadangi
(56) Charulata Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.51 to 55 are sons and Opp. Party Nos.56 is the
daughter of Late Dhruba Sadangi)
(57) Hini Sadangi, D/o. Late Srimati Sadangi and bhagaban
Sasdangi
(58) Gangadhar Sadangi, S/o. Late Baraju Sadangi
(59) Hrushikesh Sadangi,S/o. Late Udayanath Sadangi
(60) Durga Prasad Sadangi
(61) Marorama Pati
(62) Anupama Kar,
(Opp. Party Nos.60 is the son and Opp. Party Nos.61 and 62 are
the daughters of Late Pradyumna Sadangi)
(63) Ajay Sadangi
(64) Juli Sadangi
(65) Mana Sadangi
(66) Milli Sadangi
(67) Kuni Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.63 is the son and Opp. Party Nos.64 to 67 are
the daughters of Late Harihar Sadangi)
(68) Pramod Sadangi
(69) Girija Sadangi
(70) Bhabani Sankar Sadangi
(71) Binodini Dash
(72) Aparna Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.69 and 70 are the sons and Opp. Party Nos.71
and 72 are the daughters of Late Gopinath Sadangi)
(73) Raghunath Sadangi
(74) Maheswar Sadangi
(75) Kalikinkar Sadangi
(76) Tapaswini Sadangi
(77) Jasaswini Sadangi
(78) Manaswini Sadangi
W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026
Page 3 of 11
(79) Tejaswini Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.73 to 75 are the sons and Opp. Party Nos.76 to
79 are the daughters of Late Narottam Sadangi)
(80) Bikram Sadangi
(81) Sangram Sadangi
(82) Pradipta Sadangi
(83) Chhabilata Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.80 to 82 are the sons and Opp. Party Nos.83 to is
the daughters of Late Chandrasekhar Sadangi)
(84) Arun Sadangi
(85) Ajit Sadangi,
(86) Asit Sadangi
(87) Bharati Tripathy
(88) Arati Pani
(89) Minati Mohapatra
(90) Sukanti Chakravarty
(91) Suprava Mishra
(Opp. Party Nos.84 to 86 are the sons and Opp. Party Nos.87 to
91 are the daughters of Late Surendra Sadangi)
(92) Hrudananda Sadangi, S/o. Late Narayan Sadangi
(93) Umakanta Sadangi
(94) Mohini Sadangi
(95) Manjulata Sadangi
(96) Minati Sadangi
(Opp. Party No.93 is the son and Opp. Party Nos.94 to 96 are
the daughters of Late Golekha Sadangi)
(97) Manas Sadangi
(98) Tapas Sadangi,
(99) Paresh Sadangi
(100) Bikash Sadangi
(101) Manorama Sadangi
(102) Tapaswini Sadangi
(103) Truptimayee Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.97 to 100 are the sons and Opp. Party Nos.101
to 103 are the daughters of Late Brahmananda Sadangi)
(104) Prafulla Sadangi
(105) Prahallad Sadangi
(106) Prasanna Sadangi
(OPP. Party Nos.104 to 106 are the sons of Late Pranakrushna
Sadangi)
(107) Prabhuprakash Sadangi
(108) Subhasmita Sadangi
W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026
Page 4 of 11
(109) Sarasmita Sadangi
(Opp. Party Nos.107 is the son and OPP. Party Nos.108 and 109
are the daughters of Late Pratap Sadangi
(110) Pratima Mishra
(111) Sushama Dash
(112) Prativa Dash
(113) Padmaja Dash
(Opp. Party Nos.110 to 113 are the daughters of Late
Pranakrushna Sadangi)
All are of village- Nimishapur, Post-Bhagatpur, P.S.- Tangi,
Dist-Cuttack
....... Proforma Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioners : Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Senior Advocate
being assisted by
Mr.Sibasis Samantaray, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Lalit Kumar Mahaarana, Advocate
(For Commissioner of Endowments)
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 11.03.2026
----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The judgment dated 26th November, 2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (for brevity 'learned Commissioner') in O.A. No.286 of 2021 in a proceeding under Section 19-A of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Act') is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The case of the Petitioners as revealed from the petition filed under Section 19-A of the Act (Annexure-1) is that Deity Sri W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026 Page 5 of 11 Gopinathjew Thakur Bije Nimishapur under Tangi Tahasil in the district of Cuttack (for brevity 'the Deity') is the family Deity of the Petitioners. The bijesthali of the Deity is over Plot No.2379 of Khata No.47 in Mouza- Nimishapur, which is recorded in the name of the ancestors of the Petitioners. The land, more fully, described in the schedule of the petition under Section 19-A of the Act (Annexure-1) is recorded in the name of the Deity were endowed by the Petitioners' family. The schedule land situates 8 kilometers away from the bijesthali of the Deity. It is stated that the scheduled land is lying fallow and yields no income. There is every likelihood of encroachment of the scheduled land, as youngsters of the family are staying away from the village for their respective occupations. The elderly persons of the family are not in a position to look after the scheduled land, which situates far off the village. The scheduled lands are un-irrigated. Hence, an application under Section 19-A of the Act was filed by the Petitioners for issuance of "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) for alienation of the schedule land.
4. Upon receipt of the application under Section 19-A of the Act, the learned Commissioner following due procedure issued notice and sought for a report from the Inspector of Endowments, Cuttack. A report vide letter No.222/JE dated 26th December, 2022 (Annexure-2) was submitted by the Inspector of Endowments, Cuttack stating that the bijesthali of the Deity is over Plot No.2379 to an extent of Ac.0.10 dec., which is recorded in the name of the ancestors of the Petitioners' family. The members of the Petitioners' family are performing the 'sebapuja' of the Deity and W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026 Page 6 of 11 are managing its day-to-day affairs without any interference of the local pubic. The schedule land situates 8 k.ms. away from the bijesthali of the Deity and is lying fallow fetching no income.
5. Learned Commissioner also recorded the evidence of some of the family members of the Petitioners' family, who deposed in support of their contentions made in the application under Section 19-A of the Act.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that learned Commissioner though took note of the above in the impugned order under Anneuxure-5 but delving into the aspects which are not necessary for adjudication of the case, refused to grant NOC for alienation of the scheduled land and rejected the petition under Section 19-A of the Act.
7. It is his submission that the learned Commissioner took exception to the report of the Inspector of Endowments holding that it is silent on many aspects, such as, public access to temple for Darsana; nature of the institution, i.e., public or private; and the cause for seeking alienation of the land recorded in the name of the Deity. It is also observed that the Inspector of Endowments has not given a clear picture as to the persons amongst 113 numbers of the Petitioners, who are actually managing the temple. He also found some deficiencies in the depositions of the P.Ws.1 and 2 for grant of NOC.
8. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the report of the Inspector of Endowments, is clear and unambiguous on the nature of the Deity as he has stated in his W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026 Page 7 of 11 report that the sebapuja and management of the Deity are being done by the Petitioners' family. It is also reported that the institution is not indexed. The report of the Inspector further reveals that the land over which the temple situates has been recorded in the name of the ancestors of the Petitioners' family. It is further stated that the schedule land has been recorded in the name of the Deity being endowed by the Petitioners' family. Thus, nothing more is required to be reported by the Inspector of Endowments for consideration of an application under Section 19- A of the Act.
8.1. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further challenged the impugned order submitting that the learned Commissioner erroneously observed that the necessity for alienation of the land has not been stated either in the petition under Section 19-A of the Act or in the report of the Inspector of Endowments or in the depositions of the witnesses.
9. It is submitted that when the land is lying fallow and yields no income to the Deity and is likely to be encroached upon, alienation of the land will always be beneficial for the interest of the Deity. It is his submission that consideration money of the scheduled land shall be spent for the benefit of the Deity only. These aspects have been lost sight of learned Commissioner while adjudicating the matter. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
10. Mr. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner submits that although it reveals in the petition as well as in the materials available on record that the schedule land is lying W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026 Page 8 of 11 fallow and yields no income for the Deity and there is every likelihood of it being encroached upon but alienation of the land is not the only solution for the benefit of the Deity. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners do not also depose as to how the sale proceeds will be utilized. He, however, relying upon the observations made by this Court in the case of Pravasini Parija and Another Vrs. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in W.P.(C) No.37763 of 2025 disposed of on 11th February, 2026 submits that requirement of Rule 4-A of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959 makes it clear that the Commissioner has to record its prima facie satisfaction as to whether the Deity is not public in nature. There are lapses in the materials available to come to a concrete finding as to whether the Deity is private or public in nature. He, thus, submits that learned Commissioner has committed no error in dismissing the application of the Petitioners by refusing to grant NOC.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12. Perused the materials placed before us.
13. Taking note of the above, this Court perused the contents of the petition under Annexure-1, report of the Inspector of Endowments under Annexrure-2 as well as the depositions of P.Ws.1 and 2. On perusal, it clearly reveals that bijesthali of Shri Shri Gopinath Jew Thakura Bije- Nimishapur (the Deity) situates over the land recorded in the name of the ancestors of the Petitioners. It is also not disputed that the sebapuja and management of the Deity is done by the members of the Petitioners' family. Public have no access in sebapuja or management of the Deity. Thus, there cannot be any iota W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026 Page 9 of 11 of doubt that the Deity is the private Deity of the Petitioners. There are ample materials on record to show that the schedule land is lying fallow and yields no income to the Deity. There is every likelihood of it being encroached upon. It also emanates from the record more particularly from the evidence of P.W.1 that the youngsters of the family are residing away from the village for their respective occupations and it is not possible on the part of the elderly members of the family, who are residing in the village to look after the scheduled land, which situate 8 k.ms. away from the bijesthali of the Deity. In that event, alienation of the schedule land would be beneficial and for the best interest of the Deity.
13.1. It further reveals that the learned Commissioner has dealt into unnecessary aspects like non-production of original record and mutation application for appreciation. The learned Commissioner appears to have misconstrued the report of the Inspector of Endowments, which clearly reveals that the Deity is private in nature, and is being worshiped and managed by the family of the Petitioners.
13.2. At the same time, it reveals that there is no material on record, which would establish that the sale proceeds of the schedule land will be utilized for the benefit of the Deity. Hence, this Court feels that the matter to the aforesaid extent requires fresh consideration by learned Commissioner.
14. Thus, the impugned order under Annexure-5 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Commissioner of Endowments to adjudicate the petition under Section 19-A of the Act afresh in the light of the observation made hereinabove permitting the Petitioners to adduce evidence with regard to manner in which the sale proceeds W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026 Page 10 of 11 of the schedule land shall be utilized for the benefit of the Deity. Recording such evidence, if any, adduced by the Petitioners, learned Commissioner shall proceed to adjudicate the matter keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
15. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 11th February, 2026/Himansuu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Mar-2026 19:56:52 W.P.(C) No. 2388 OF 2026 Page 11 of 11