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 unsupported public consultation requirements.

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the judgment dated 21^st September, 2024 (Annexure-1) passed in O.A. No.284 of 2023, whereby learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Commissioner’)-Opposite Party No.2 rejected an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 19 -A of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner has installed deities, more fully, described in the petition under Section 19 -A of the Act in his residence. He is the marfatdar of the said Deities. Public have no access either to the premises of the Petitioner or to the bijesthali. The land in question was purchased in the name of the deities and consolidation ROR has been prepared accordingly describing the Petitioner as the marfatdar. The land in question is of ‘Bagayat’ kisam and it fetches no income. Thus, for the benefit of the deities, the marfatdar proposed to sale the property. Accordingly, a petition under -A of the Act was filed. The Inspector of Endowments, Puri I/C, Puri-II in his report No.122/Judicial.E.C dated 7^th May, 2024 (Annexure-4) has categorically stated that on verification, the deities were found to be installed in a small room inside the residence of Jagannath Choudhary over Plot No.188/245 of Khata No.70 of Kisam Gharabari-I, which stands recorded in the name of Sri Sarat Chandra Choudhary S/o- Jagannath Choudhary. The sebapuja and worship of the deities is confined to members of Choudhary family. No outsider has either access for darshan or any role to play in the management of the deities. It is also stated that the land in question is recorded in the name of the deities. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that although learned Commissioner took note of the same, but most erroneously held that the statement of the public has not been taken and that the Petitioner has not specifically stated in its application, in whose favour ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) was issued, in the event the O.A. is allowed. It is further submitted that the report of the Inspector is silent about the income from the land proposed to be sold. Neither P.W.1 nor O.P.W.1 stated regarding sebapuja and nitikanti as well as rituals being observed for the deities and expenditure incurred for the same. Yet, learned Commissioner rejected the petition under -A of the Act refusing to grant NOC in favour of the Petitioner to sell the land in question.

4. It is his submission that when the Inspector of Endowments, Puri has stated that the deities are private and public have neither any access nor perform sebapuja of the deities, learned Commissioner should not have raised any doubt with regard to nature of the deities. Further the Petitioner- Marfatdar is intending to sale the property for the benefit of the deities. Although P.W.1 has not specifically deposed about the expenditure incurred for the nitikanti and sebapuja of the deities, but no doubt has been raised by the Inspector of Endowments with regard to the same. Further, there is no evidence on record to come to conclusion that the land proposed to be sold yields sufficient income to meet the nitikanti and sebapuja of the deities. When there is no material contrary to the statement of P.W.1 available on record, learned Commissioner should have allowed the petition under Section 19 -A of the Act.

4.1. There is no provision to record the statement of the public while adjudicating a petition under Section 19 -A of the Act. However, if learned Commissioner wished the opinion of the public to be recorded to test th