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 interests.

JUDGMENT :

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The judgment dated 26^th November, 2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘learned Commissioner’) in O.A. No.286 of 2021 in a proceeding under Section 19 -A of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. The case of the Petitioners as revealed from the petition filed under Section 19 -A of the Act (Annexure-1) is that Deity Sri Gopinathjew Thakur Bije Nimishapur under Tangi Tahasil in the district of Cuttack (for brevity ‘the Deity’) is the family Deity of the Petitioners. The bijesthali of the Deity is over Plot No.2379 of Khata No.47 in Mouza- Nimishapur, which is recorded in the name of the ancestors of the Petitioners. The land, more fully, described in the schedule of the petition under -A of the Act (Annexure-1) is recorded in the name of the Deity were endowed by the Petitioners’ family. The schedule land situates 8 kilometers away from the bijesthali of the Deity. It is stated that the scheduled land is lying fallow and yields no income. There is every likelihood of encroachment of the scheduled land, as youngsters of the family are staying away from the village for their respective occupations. The elderly persons of the family are not in a position to look after the scheduled land, which situates far off the village. The scheduled lands are un-irrigated. Hence, an application under -A of the Act was filed by the Petitioners for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) for alienation of the schedule land.

4. Upon receipt of the application under Section 19 -A of the Act, the learned Commissioner following due procedure issued notice and sought for a report from the Inspector of Endowments, Cuttack. A report vide letter No.222/JE dated 26^th December, 2022 (Annexure-2) was submitted by the Inspector of Endowments, Cuttack stating that the bijesthali of the Deity is over Plot No.2379 to an extent of Ac.0.10 dec., which is recorded in the name of the ancestors of the Petitioners’ family. The members of the Petitioners’ family are performing the ‘sebapuja’ of the Deity and are managing its day-to-day affairs without any interference of the local pubic. The schedule land situates 8 k.ms. away from the bijesthali of the Deity and is lying fallow fetching no income.

5. Learned Commissioner also recorded the evidence of some of the family members of the Petitioners’ family, who deposed in support of their contentions made in the application under Section 19 -A of the Act.

6. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that learned Commissioner though took note of the above in the impugned order under Anneuxure-5 but delving into the aspects which are not necessary for adjudication of the case, refused to grant NOC for alienation of the scheduled land and rejected the petition under Section 19 -A of the Act.

7. It is his submission that the learned Commissioner took exception to the report of the Inspector of Endowments holding that it is silent on many aspects, such as, public access to temple for Darsana; nature of the institution, i.e., public or private; and the cause for seeking alienation of the land recorded in the name of the Deity. It is also observed that the Inspector of Endowments has not given a clear picture as to the persons amongst 113 numbers of the Petitioners, who are actually managing the temple. He also found some deficiencies in the depositions of the P.Ws.1 and 2 for grant of NOC.

8. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submits that the report of the Inspector of