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 alienation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the judgment dated 18^th March, 2025 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.158 of 2015 rejecting an application filed by them under Section 19-A of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that Deity Sri Raghunathjew Bije Nijagaon, Tentuliapada under Tahasil-Tirtol in the district of Jagatsinghpur (for brevity, ‘the Deity’) is a private Deity of the family of the Petitioners. The predecessor of the Petitioners, namely, Ashok Kumar Parija was managing the affairs of the Deity and was performing daily ‘nitikanti’ and ‘sebapuja’ by engaging a Pujaka. Due to legal necessity of the Deity, the property, more fully described in the schedule of the petition under Section 19- A of the Act under Annexure-1(for brevity ‘the case land’) was required to be alienated. It is further submitted that the case land is situated far from the house of the Petitioners. The case land is lying vacant and yields no income to the Deity. There is every likelihood of encroachment of the case land. Thus, in order to protect the interest of the Deity, the land is required to be alienated and the consideration amount would be kept in deposit in the name of the Deity, to be utilized for the benefit of the Deity. On the said averment, petition under Section 19-A of the Act was filed by the predecessor of the Petitioners, namely Ashok Kumar Parija with a prayer to issue No Objection Certificate (for brevity ‘NOC’) in prescribed Form AA for alienation of the case land.

3.1. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the Inspector of Endowments submitted a report that the Deity is private in nature and is being looked after by said Ashok Kumar Parija on behalf of his family members. Learned Commissioner though took note of the report of Inspector of Endowments but, without giving any weightage to the same, tried to make out a different case with regard to correctness of the Record of Right of the Deity’s property in the name of the Deity showing Ashok Kumar Parija as Marfatdar. Learned Commissioner also raised doubt about the necessity of alienation of the land as the details of income and expenditure of the Deity was not placed before him.

3.2. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate refers to Rule 4-A of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) and submits that upon receipt of an application under Section 19-A of the Act, learned Commissioner shall issue notice for information of the general public together with copy of the application fixed under Sub-rule (1) in conspicuous place of the office of the urban or local body, as the case may be. He shall also invite objection of the said application to be received within one month from the date of publication of such notice. On receiving the objection, if any, within the stipulated period and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, if learned Commissioner is prima facie satisfied that the institution in question is not a public religious institution for which, no sanction under Section 19 of the Act is required, he shall grant NOC in Form-AA of the said Rules. Though the Inspector of Endowments submitted report that the Deity is private in nature, but ignoring such observation, learned Commissioner proceeded to observe that the Inspector of Endowments has no