Royal Ritual Rights: Orissa High Court Remands Nayagarh ‘Chhera Pahanra’ Dispute for Fresh Inquiry

Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has set aside the decisions of the endowment authorities that granted the right to perform the 'Chhera Pahanra' ritual to one branch of the erstwhile Nayagarh royal family, ruling that a proper and detailed inquiry is mandatory in disputes over customary rights, even if one party defaults in the proceedings.

In a significant judgment addressing the duties of quasi-judicial bodies, Justice R.K. Pattanaik emphasized that in matters of public importance and family honour, endowment authorities cannot merely rely on one-sided evidence. The Court restored the case to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments for a fresh, comprehensive hearing.

A Decades-Old Royal Tussle

The case revolves around a contentious dispute between two cousins, Gajendra Chandra Singh (appellant) and Rameswar Prasad Singh (respondent), over the hereditary right to perform the 'chhera pahanra seva'—the ritual sweeping of the chariots of Lord Jagannath during the Rath Yatra at Nayagarh. This honour is traditionally reserved for the head of the Nayagarh royal family.

The dispute stems from the lineage of the last ruler, Raja Krushna Chandra Singh Mandhata.

- Gajendra Singh is the grandson of the Raja through his first wife, Rani Sahiba Homarajya Laxmi. He claimed the right as the successor to his father, Brajendra Kishore Singh, who had performed the ritual for nearly 29 years until his death in 2012.

- Rameswar Singh is the grandson of the same Raja through a second wife, Soubhagya Manjari Devi. He contested Gajendra's claim, asserting that his own lineage was the rightful heir to the throne and its associated duties.

The matter escalated in 2013, leading Rameswar Singh to file an application under Section 41(e) of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments (OHRE) Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments ruled in his favour after the appellant, Gajendra Singh, was set ex-parte for failing to file a written statement. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner of Endowments, prompting Gajendra Singh to appeal to the High Court.

Arguments Before the Court

The Appellant (Gajendra Singh) , represented by Senior Advocate S.K. Padhi, argued that: - The lower authorities failed to appreciate the established custom, as his father had performed the ritual undisputedly from 1983 to 2012. - A previous civil suit (T.S. No. 72 of 1988) concerning property rights, which was used against him, did not adjudicate the question of royal succession or the right to perform rituals. - He was unable to pursue the case diligently before the Assistant Commissioner due to the sudden death of his brother, who was handling the litigation. - The endowment authorities had a duty to conduct a thorough, independent inquiry into a matter of such public importance and honour, rather than deciding the case based on a default.

The Respondent (Rameswar Singh) , represented by Advocate A.K. Mohapatra, contended that: - The appellant was given ample opportunity (27 adjournments) but willfully failed to participate in the proceedings and should not be granted a remand. - The appellant's father had illegitimately performed the ritual while the respondent's family was engaged in other litigations. - The decisions of the lower authorities were based on the evidence on record, which established his claim as the rightful successor.

Court’s Emphasis on a “Meaningful Enquiry”

Justice Pattanaik, after a detailed analysis, found that the endowment authorities had failed in their statutory duty. The court noted that a prior property dispute did not determine the right to perform the 'chhera pahanra seva'.

The judgment highlighted a critical point:

"A party is at default does not mean that the learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments or the Endowment Commissioner, for that matter, is absolved of any such responsibility in holding an inquiry under the OHRE Act, rather, to insist upon such evidence necessary by following the procedure prescribed therein demanding inspection and production of records necessary to adjudicate upon the dispute."

The Court observed that crucial facts, such as who was coronated as the king, why the appellant’s father performed the seva for three decades, and the validity of rival claims, were not properly investigated.

"The Court is of the conclusion that the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, while exercising powers under the OHRE Act, is a court of fact and law, hence, should have exercised the jurisdiction as contemplated under law even directing the appellant to lead evidence or holding an inquiry by himself, the purpose being to ascertain as to who has the rights to perform the chhera pahanra seva during the car festival."

The Final Verdict

Concluding that the lower authorities failed to conduct a "roving inquiry as permissible under law," the High Court allowed the appeal. The orders of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Endowments were set aside.

The case (O.A. Case No. 12 of 2013) has been remanded to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar, with a clear directive to hold a "detailed and meaningful enquiry," allow both parties to present evidence, and dispose of the matter in accordance with the law.