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.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Sinha, J. - The writ petition was moved on 30th November, 2022. On behalf of petitioner it was submitted that she wants to deal with property purchased by her under a registered conveyance dated 12th August, 1992. As such, she applied for 'No Objection' certificate under section 19-A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. Inserted by amendment rule 4A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959 lays down procedure for application for issuance of 'No Objection' certificate. It requires issuance of public notice. It was submitted, in spite of not receiving any objection to the public notice issued, the Commissioner passed impugned judgment dated 20th July, 2018 rejecting the application for 'No Objection' certificate under section 19-A. Furthermore enquiry report was also in favour of petitioner.

2. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, while Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate for State and Ms. Naidu, learned advocate for Commissioner of Endowments.

3. On said earlier occasion Ms. Naidu had pointed out from paragraph 6 of impugned judgment that her client found case schedule land stood recorded in name of deity Sri Dadhibaban Dev, bije 'Nijagaon', indicating public deity. In the circumstances, enquiry report was disbelieved and the judgment duly made. She had submitted further, section 19-A was inserted by amendment in year 1989 and applied thereafter. There should not be interference. Mr. Dash in reply had relied on view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sumit v. State, reported in 2012 (I) OLR - 922. He had submitted, rule 4A was inserted by amendment in year 2012, pursuant to the view.

4. We had noticed from rule 4A that sub-rule (3) therein provides for consequence on receiving objection. Impugned judgment says, no objection was received. Hence, we found a situation of section 19-A having coming to force in year, 1989 but thereafter, petitioner had obtained registered conveyance in year, 1992, without requirement of obtaining permission.

5. We had directed petitioner to obtain official translation of the deed. It was obtained and filed by additional affidavit dated 4th December, 2022.

6. We reproduce below section 19-A without the provisos.

'19-A. Regulation of registration of documents - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any document required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 16 of 1908, purports to evidence a transfer, by exchange, sale, mortgage or by lease for a term exceeding five years, of any immovable property belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any public religious institution, no Registering Officer, appointed under that Act, shall register any such document unless the transferor produces before such Registering Officer, the sanction order passed by the Commissioner under Section 19, or, as the case may be, no objection certificate in the prescribed form granted by the Commissioner or any Officer authorized by him in that behalf.' (emphasis supplied)

7. Today too we have heard learned advocates for the parties.

8. On behalf of the Commissioner there is contention that though record in the Record of Rights is a rebuttable presumption nevertheless, the entry in appropriate column is 'Nijagaon' implying worship of the deity by the villagers, making it a public deity. This was what weighed with the Commissioner in making impugned order. On the other hand we have, the Registering Officer duly appointed under the Registration Act, 16 of 1908 had registered said sale deed dated 12th August, 1992, sometime after the inserted by Odisha Amendment Act no.22 of 1989 provision of section 19-A. We looked at official translation of the deed and found that there is description of the deity being vendor therein both as 'Nijagaon' as well as 'Nijagruha'. It is clear that the registering authority, on having had the sale deed presented for registration, foun