Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Arindam Sinha, S.K. Mishra, JJ.
Sri Sri Satyabadi Gopinath Dev Bije Phula Alasa, Puri – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 28837 of 2022
Decided On : 14-12-2022
Commissioner of Endowments - Dispute over Land Possession - The court analyzed the evidence and held that the lands, not proven to be of the deity institution or any other trust, did not require permission under section 19 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, representing the deity, challenged the Commissioner of Endowments' judgment rejecting their claim for possession of land, despite evidence of the deity's historical ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The Commissioner held that the petitioner had not succeeded in proving its case, primarily due to pending litigation and lack of evidence establishing the land as belonging to the deity institution or trust.
Issues: Dispute over possession of land, rejection of petitioner's claim, and the requirement for permission under the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the analysis of evidence and the finding that the lands in question were not proven to be of the deity institution or any other trust, thus not requiring permission under the relevant legal provision.
Final Decision: The court issued notice to the opposite parties and scheduled the case for hearing and disposal on a later date.
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner-deity. He submits, impugned is judgment dated 25th July, 2022 made by the Commissioner of Endowments. He draws attention to page 9 of the judgment to show that the Commissioner had material by way of an order passed by Commissioner, Consolidation, directing to record name of deity in the tenant column as tenant in respect of the land, which was originally recorded in the 1927-28 settlement RoR in its name. He submits, in spite thereof the Commissioner rejected claim of his client for being put in possession of the land. On query from Court he submits, opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 are presently occupying the land.
2. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and points out from page 12 of the judgment that opposite parties before the Commissioner had purchased scheduled land from legal heir and successor of Lal Bihari Das by deed dated 29th January, 2007. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.
3. It appears from impugned judgment, primarily on reason W.P.(C) no.26862 of 2017 is pending, wherein order of the Consolidation, Commissioner stood challenged, the Commissioner held that petitioner had not succeeded proving its case. The Commissioner thereafter went into analysis of evidence and held that though it is true none of the sale transactions were with permission under section 19 of Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 but, the lands not having proved to be of the deity institution or any other trust, there is no necessity for such permission. In this connection we put query and Ms. Naidu informed us that private opposite parties or any other person does not have their names recorded in respect of the land.
4. Issue notice along with this order on opposite party nos.2 to 4 by registered/speed post with A.D. Petitioner will put in requisites. Private opposite parties are expected to come ready for hearing and disposal of the writ petition.
5. List on 11th January, 2023.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that permission under the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 is not required for lands not proven to be of the deity institution or any....
The court ruled that the rejection of a No Objection Certificate application under Section 19-A of the Act for private deities was erroneous, emphasizing compliance with procedural rules over unsuppo....
The learned Commissioner must properly evaluate evidence regarding the nature of a Deity as public or private under Section 19-A of the Act before deciding on the No Objection Certificate for land al....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the recorded 'Sebayat' of a deity may have the right to alienate the property belonging to the deity if it can be shown that the property ....
Transfer of property belonging to a deity without notice to the Endowment Commissioner is illegal, and any ownership claims made through fraud are void.
The court ruled that refusal to delete a deity's name from land records lacked justification and emphasized that petitioners' legitimate claims should not be disregarded due to the absence of legal r....
Refusal of No Objection Certificate for alienation of land related to a private deity deemed erroneous; the court emphasizes the necessity for alienation to prevent encroachment and serve the deity's....
The absence of a prescribed procedure for granting the 'No Objection' certificate and the lack of objections to the petitioner's application supported the petitioner's entitlement to the certificate.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
