Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R.MOHAPATRA, SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Rajesh Ranjan Sarangi, S/o-Late Brahmananda Sarangi – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Endowments – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The judgment dated 26th 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 e
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 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....
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 ....
A lease for temple property must demonstrate necessity and benefit to the deity; merely augmenting income is insufficient and procedural violations render the decision unjustifiable.
The court ruled that the lease of temple property was unjustifiable due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and lack of necessity, emphasizing the prioritization of temple interests over pu....
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....
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....
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
