Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Arindam Sinha, S.K. Mishra, JJ.
Gangadhar Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 31750 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2022
Form-AA - Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Rules, 1959 - The court directed the Commissioner to consider the additional fact of the petitioner obtaining a certificate from the Sarpanch and deal with the application expeditiously, within six weeks of communication. The judgment was set aside to the extent regarding the finding of absence of link of the petitioner with recorded marfatdars.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a certificate in Form AA under the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Rules, 1959, which was refused by the Commissioner citing absence of link between the petitioner and recorded marfatdar.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Commissioner to consider the additional fact of the petitioner obtaining a certificate from the Sarpanch and set aside the judgment to the extent regarding the finding of absence of link of the petitioner with recorded marfatdars.
Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the certificate in Form AA based on the absence of a link between the petitioner and recorded marfatdar.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the additional fact of the petitioner obtaining a certificate from the Sarpanch, which indicated a potential link between the petitioner and the recorded marfatdar.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the Commissioner was directed to consider the additional fact of the petitioner obtaining the certificate from the Sarpanch and deal with the application expeditiously, within six weeks of communication.
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is judgment dated 24th January, 2022, by which the Commissioner refused to grant certificate in Form AA provided by rule 4-A(3) in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Rules, 1959. He submits, it is apparent from the judgment that there is finding on fact regarding the deity being private. However, the Commissioner said there was no link between his client and recorded marfatdar.
2. Mr. Dash draws attention to annexure-5 being certificate dated 23rd September, 2022 issued by Sarpanch of concerned village saying that his client is only son of brother of recorded marfatdar. He emphasis, there was no objection received regarding it is a private deity. Permission by Form-AA ought to have been issued.
3. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and points out, the application was made in year 2013 and there is apparent effort at creating a link after impugned judgment was delivered.
4. We have perused inspection report dated 11th December, 2014. As far back as at that time there was no objection and local people had told the inspector, no outsider is allowed to have darshan of the deity. Sebapuja of the deity is exclusively done by Sri Gangadhar Mohanty and his family members. We have prima facie appreciation that petitioner cannot be excluded from the family of Sri Gangadhar Mohanty. We also appreciate that on rejection by impugned judgment, based on reason of absence of link, petitioner approached and obtained certificate dated 23rd September, 2022 from the Sarpanch and thereupon moved this Court.
5. The Commissioner is directed to consider the additional fact of petitioner having obtained the certificate from the Sarpanch and deal with the application expeditiously, within six weeks of communication. We may it clear that we have not said anything regarding the inquiry report or other findings of the Commissioner in impugned judgment regarding nature of the deity. Hence, the judgment is set aside to the extent regarding finding of absence of link of petitioner with recorded marfatdars.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Commissioner to consider additional evidence and set aside a decision based on the absence of a link between the petitioner....
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 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 ....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commissioner of Endowments cannot impose conditions while granting a 'No Objection' certificate as mandated by the Odisha Hindu Religious ....
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 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....
Point of law: Section 63, it is the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner who has to decide any dispute as to whether an institution is a religious institution or not. Even before deciding whethe....
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
