JUDGMENT

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2008 dismissing W.P.(C) No. 10378 of 2006 filed by the present appellants observing that sale of the land belonging to the deity made by registered sale deeds was strictly in accord¬ance with the order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments and appellants had no locus standi to the writ petition as they were never inducted as tenants nor they were in possession of the land and therefore, the writ petition could not be entertained.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the land in dispute exclusively belonging to the reli¬gious institution namely, Sri Rama, Laxman, Sita Swamy situate at Lochapada in district Ganjam. The person appointed for management of the said institution filed an application under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) seeking permission to alienate Ac.4.225 decimal lands on the ground that major portion of the said land was occu¬pied by tenants who were neither paying any ‘Bhag’ nor contribut¬ing anything to the institution. It was further alleged that if immediate steps were not taken, the balance lands may also be forcibly occupied by trespassers.

3. The Commissioner of Endowments under the Act accorded permission to sale the disputed land @ Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) per acre to the tenants in possession and if they are not willing to have it, put up the said land by action fixing a offset price at Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. A suo motu revision was taken by the Law Secretary under the provisions of the Act where¬in large number of questions were considered including as to whether the price fixed by the Endowment Commissioner was accu¬rate or could be a sufficient consideration. The present appel¬lants filed an intervention application on 15.4.2006 offering a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs per acre for the said land. They also claimed to intervene as a Hindu public having right to protect the deity. The said revision was ultimately disposed of vide order dated 30.5.2006 with a direction that the land which has not yet been settled, be put to auction, so that it may fetch maximum consid¬eration.

4. Both the orders passed by the Commissioner of Endow¬ments as well as Law Secretary in revision were challenged by the present appellants and in the writ petition they offered a sum of Rs.25 lakhs per acre. However, learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the grounds herein above. Hence this ap¬peal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. U.C. Patnaik submitted that the land was worth Rs.60 lakhs and the Respondent N.4 had purchased the said land for a consideration of Rs. 20.19 lakhs vide registered sale deeds dated 2.8.2005 and 30.8.2005 as the market price was three times more than paid by him and the appellants being Hindu of that area had approached the revisional authority by moving an application of intervention and filed the writ petition, they could not be held to be strangers or having no interest. The appellants are still willing to make a offer of Rs. 25 lakhs per acre. Therefore, the entire lands should be put to auction and in case it does not fetch price over and above Rs.25 lakhs, the appellants undertake to purchase the same for Rs.25 lakhs per acre.

6. Sri Routray, learned counsel appearing for the Respond¬ents has not advanced any submission on the issue of fixation of price, rather contended that appellants had no right to approach the writ court against the order of the Endowment Commissioner and the Law Secretary Revisional Authority and the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition and therefore the appeal is liable to dismissed.

7. We have considered the rival submission made by the parties and pursued the record.

8. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposi¬tion that the land belonging to the deity cannot be subjected to alienat