Transfer of property belonging to a deity without notice to the Endowment Commissioner is illegal, and any ownership claims made through fraud are void.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner, who was the opposite party before the revisional authority, has preferred this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.11.2015 passed in Settlement Revision Petition No.77 of 2014 under Annexure-6, whereby the revisional authority, i.e., Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-opposite party no.2 has issued direction that the Consolidation ROR shall be recorded in the name of the original khewat, i.e., Sri Chaitanya Dev and Radhakanta Dev in the Tenants Column under the Khewatdari of “Odisha Sarkar” ignoring the stitiban right of the family of the petitioner reflected in 1927 Settlement as well as 1977 Settlement, and that the Endowment Commissioner, Odisha shall decide the Trustee.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the property situated in Mouza-Penthapada @ Gopalpur Patna @ Satyabadi under Satyabadi Tahasil of District-Puri bearing Khata No.194, Plot Nos.493, 342, 347 of area Ac.0.12 dec. as per 1927 ROR corresponding to Khata No.357, 358, Plot Nos.398, 407/795, 497 of area Ac.0.12 dec. as per 1977 ROR 730, 740, 736/796 is the subject-matter of the case. The said property was recorded in the name of Satyabadi Gopinath Dev in the year 1927 under Deregistration No.12966 which was given to Chaitanya Dev and Radhakant Dev of village-Phula Alasa for Seva Puja of the deity and one relative, namely, Basudev Hota was the trustee of Satyabadi Gopinath Dev. The caretaker of the deity Radhakant Dev handed over the property to the petitioner in Rent Case No.22789. After framing of new Trust Board in the year 2010, opposite party no.1 came to know from the Revenue Department about the transaction of the property and filed SRP No.77 of 2014 under Section 15 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. It was alleged by opposite party no.1 that transfer of the property from the name of the deity to a private person, i.e., the petitioner was illegal and the same was done without obtaining permission from the Endowment Commissioner under Section 19 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred in short as “OHRE, Act”).

2.1 On perusal of the record and considering the contentions raised by the petitioner that the aforesaid revision was filed after four decades of publication of ROR in 1977 and Khata No.194 of 1927 was recorded in favour of Hari Ram, son of Tilak Ram in Stitiban status and Deity Radhakanta Dev was the Ex-proprietor, whose tenancy was vested in 1974, the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, found that the property belonged to the Endowment and the Commissioner, Endowment has not been made as a party to the revision case. The transfer of property belonging to the deity without express permission of the Endowment Commissioner is illegal for all practical purposes. The right of a marfatdari property, which, while inheritable, is non-transferrable. Therefore, the Commissioner, Consolidation, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, vide order dated 24.11.2015, directed to record the Consolidation ROR in the name of the original Khewat, i.e. Sri Chaitanya Dev and Radhakanta Dev in the Tenants Column under the Khewatdari of “Odisha Sarkar” and the Endowment Commissioner, Odisha shall decide the Trustee. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. S.C. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the deity Chaitnya Dev is neither proprietor nor owner of the property. Therefore, the claim made by Prafulla Chandra Mishra as Trustee of Chaitanya Dev Badamath has no locus standi, rather, relying upon the documents under Annexures-2 and 7, he contended that the deity Radhaka