Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R.MOHAPATRA, SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Pravasini Parija – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Endowment, Bhubaneswar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under section 19-a of the act. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of the deity. (Para 3) |
| 3. commissioner’s responsibilities and duties. (Para 4) |
| 4. factual findings on the nature of the deity. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. necessity for evidence and procedural correctness. (Para 7) |
| 6. need for fresh consideration of the application. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. direction for expeditious handling of the case. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the judgment dated 18th 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 perform
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....
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy under Section 25(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 is an efficacious remedy for the trust to recover the proper....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the Civil Court's jurisdiction in deciding the status of a deity and the rights of the trustees, as provided under the Hindu Reli....
The court emphasized that decisions affecting public interest must be accompanied by clear reasoning to ensure transparency and fair play, particularly in matters of auction concerning religious prop....
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....
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
