Orissa High Court
Biswanath Mohapatra @ Naik And vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 2 March, 2023
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.38568 of 2021
Biswanath Mohapatra @ Naik and .... Petitioners
s
Others
Mr. Niranjan Panda, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. T.K. Praharaj, SC for the State
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
02.03.2023 Order No.
02. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant petition is filed by the petitioners for correction of ROR in respect of Plot No.879/235, Khata No.57 and Plot No.907/236/2, Khata No.393 of Mouza-Deulapodi, Tahasil-Polsara, District-Ganjam and confirmation of possession as Sebayats of deity Swapneswar Matha Prabhu based on Yadast report.
3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Endowment Authority may be directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners for necessary correction in the ROR as the subject is related to the deity. While contending so, Mr. Panda refers to Section 24 of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act. It is submitted that in fact the Endowment Commissioner should be directed to examine the matter as per and in accordance with law.
4. Mr.Praharaj, learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that no such direction may be issued to the Page 1 of 2 Endowment Commissioner as he does not have the jurisdiction to take up such matters.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioners are seeking for correction of the ROR, the Court is of the view that such a question cannot be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. At the same time, the Court is also of the view that no such direction can be issued to the Endowment Authority to consider and examine the plea of the petitioner. If so advised, the petitioners may approach the appropriate forum to ventilate their grievance vis-a-vis correction of the ROR in respect of the subject, which is stated to be owned by Swapneswar Matha Prabhu.
6. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge U.K. Sahoo Page 2 of 2