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 stoo