The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 does not provide for the transfer of property endowed in favor of a private family deity.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J.

In both the writ petitions common issues are involved and as such both the writ petitions have been heard together and this common judgment is passed. This court vide order dtd.20.07.2016 in W.P.(C) No.7013 of 2016 has requested learned senior counsels Mr. C. A. Rao and Mr. Manoj Mishra to assist the court so far as Section 19-A of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act along with Rules and in view thereof both the learned senior counsels after taking much pain have assisted the court at length. The order passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar refusing to grant no objection certificate U/s.19-A of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (OHRE Act, 1951) is under challenge. The issue fell for consideration in these writ petitions is:-

“As to whether requirement of no objection certificate in order to sell the property of private family deity is necessary?”

2. The brief facts of the case of petitioners in W.P.(C) No.7013 of 2016 is that the founder of deity/institution had donated a piece of land which has been recorded in the name of the deity and when the petitioners needed huge amount of money for their personal purposes they wanted to sell the schedule land and when the petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration of the said land in the name of the purchaser, the Sub-Registrar insisted upon no objection certificate from the court of Commissioner of Endowment, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. So a petition has been filed before the Commissioner of Endowment U/s.19-A of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 with a prayer to issue no objection certificate in favour of the petitioners to sell the schedule land for their personal purposes but the Commissioner, Endowment has passed order refusing to grant no objection certificate.

3. The fact of the case of petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6806 of 2016 is that the petitioners have made an application to issue no objection certificate to sell the schedule land recorded in the name of Shree Gobinda Gopinath Jew. According to the petitioners the schedule land stood recorded in the name of father of petitioner nos.1 to 3 as well as in the name of petitioner no.4 as Marfatdar of the case deity with Sthitiban status. The schedule land was purchased by the fore-fathers of petitioner nos.1 to 4 out of their personal funds. The case deity was being worshipped inside the residential premises of the petitioners as their private family deity. The case deity being the private family deity of petitioner nos.1 to 4, they wanted to sell/transfer the schedule land to the intended purchaser to meet their legal necessity, but the local Registering Authority refused to register the proposed sale deed in respect of the case land and insisted upon them to obtain “No Objection Certificate” from the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar U/s.19-A of the O.H.R.E. Act and therefore the petitioners have approached the Commissioner of Endowment who has framed three issues, one of them is “as to whether the case deity/institution is the private family deity of the petitioners?” and after discussing evidence in this regard has came to conclusion that the case deity/institution cannot be accepted as the private family deity of the petitioners as claimed by them and hence the petition U/s.19-A of O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 is not maintainable in the eye of law and accordingly held the petitioners not entitled to avail the compensation amount awarded and deposited in favour of the case deity/institution.

Thus in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7013 of 2016 the issue is with respect to selling of the property of private family deity wherein conscious finding has been given by the Commissioner of Endowment that it is the private family deity while in W.P.(C) No.6806 of 2016 the finding given by the Commissioner of Endowment is that the deity is a public deity, hence in these two factual aspects both the cases have been taken for their final