JUDGMENT

B.K. NAYAK, J. - All these writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law and therefore, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

OJC Nos. 5594 of 1995 and 8148, 8149, 8150, 8151 of 1998 are filed by the Deity, Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, Bije-Bhubaneswar. The other four writ petitions have been filed by some private individuals.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1. The disputed property measuring Ac. 0.445 appertains to 1962 Settlement Plot No. 247, under Khata No. 1878 of Mouza-Bhubaneswar with classification ‘Bagayat’. The disputed property along with other properties belong to the Deity, Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu of Bhubaneswar, who had intermediary interest in respect thereof. It was part of the Trust Estate of the Deity and admittedly it vested with the State Government on 18.03.1974 under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (in short “the OEA Act”). Under a scheme prepared in terms of Section 42 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (in short “OHRE Act”) the management of the Deity’s endowment vested in a Trust Board under the control of the Commissioner of Endowments. The day-to-day management of the Deity’s Endowment is being looked after by an Executive Officer.

2.2 After vesting of the property the Commissioner of Endowments made a proposal for settlement of some properties including the disputed property in favour of the Deity, Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu under the provisions of Section-7-A of the OEA Act. Accordingly the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha in OEA Revision Case No. 03 of 1981 by his order dated 29.04.1983 (Annexure-2 in OJC No. 5594 of 1995) settled the disputed property along with some other properties in favor of the Deity.

2.3. The said settlement order was challenged by one Gopal Chandra Das before this Court in OJC No. 1297 of 1989 on the ground that the disputed property had been leased out by Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu in the year 1970 in favor of two Sebaks, namely, Somanath Mohapatra and Nrusingha Mohapatra after obtaining permission of the Endowment Commissioner under Section 19 of the OHER Act and the two lessees got certificate of ownership and delivery of possession from the Deity’s Executive Officer after paying salami and rent. The suit plot was sub-divided and numbered as Plot Nos. 247/1 and 247/2. Plot No. 247/1 was allotted to Somanath Mohapatra who got the same mutated in his name in the Estate Office of Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu. Plot No. 241/2 was allotted to Nrusingha Mohapatra. By a Registered Sale Deed dated 06.12.1972 Somanath Mohapatra sold his half share in the suit property in favour of Gopal Chandra Das, the petitioner in OJC No. 1297 of 1989, who took possession and constructed a house over the same and used to pay rent to the State Government on behalf of his transferor. Therefore, Somanath Mohapatra and after him the purchaser, Gopal Chandra Das became deemed tenants under the State Government in terms of Section-8(1) of the OEA Act and hence, the Deity, Lord Lingaraj Mohaprabhu was not entitled to be settled with the disputed property.

By order dated 02.09.1992 OJC No. 1297 of 1989 was disposed of quashing the order of settlement of the disputed property passed by the Member, Board of Revenue and the matter was remanded to the Member with direction to inquire into the claim of the petitioner. Gopal Chandra Das about the lease granted by the Deity’s management in favour of his vendor.

2.4. After such remand, the matter was heard by the Member, Board of Revenue. Admittedly no lease deed was executed and registered in pursuance of the so called permission granted by the Endowment Commissioner in favour of Somanath Mohapatra and Nrusingha Mohapatra. On behalf of the Deity, it was contended before the Member, Board of Revenue that the order of sanction granted by the Endo