Advocates:
['ACHYUTANANDA PATTANAIK', '', 'A PATTANAIK', 'J BEHERA', 'P NAIDU', 'A K NATH']

Page 1 of 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.12597 of 2021

Sudarsan Dalei & Anr.

&.

Petitioners

Mr. Achyutananda Pattanaik,

A. Pattanaik & J. Behera,

Advs.

-versus-

State of Orissa and Ors.

&.

Opp. Parties.

Mr.B.P. Tripathy, AGA

(for O.Ps.1 and 3)

Miss. P. Naidu, Adv.

(for O.P.2))

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA

JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

Order No.

ORDER

09.08.2021

04.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. Achyutananda Pattanaik, learned counsel for

the Petitioners, Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the State and Miss P. Naidu, learned

counsel for the Opposite Party No.2-Commissioner of

Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

3.

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have prayed to

direct the Opposite Party No.3- Sub-Registrar, Balianta,

District- Khurda to register the documents (RSD) to be

presented by them for transfer of the landed property recorded

// 2 //

Page 2 of 4

in the name of Deity Sri Bhagabat Gosain Bije Nija Gruha of

Mouza- Ranpur, Tahasil- Balianta, District- Khurda.

4.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the

aforesaid Deity being the private Deity, it is not necessary to

obtain <No Objection Certificate= from the Commissioner of

Endowments. He relies upon the judgment of this Court passed

in the case of Sumit Kumar Bose and Others 3vrs.- State of

Orissa and Others: reported in 2012 (I) OLR 911, wherein the

Single Bench of this Court has held that <Registering Authority

cannot refuse to register for the want of 8No Objection

Certificate9 =.

5.

However, Miss P. Naidu, learned counsel for the

Commissioner of Endowments brings to our notice to the fact

that amendment has been made in the Orissa Hindu Religious

Endowments Act, 1951 and as similar matters had been come

to this Court, a Division Bench of this Court in a common

judgment passed in the case of Antaryami Dash and Others -

vrs.- State of Odisha and Another: reported in 2016 (II) OLR

850, has held as follows:

<8.

Since we have answered the issue by holding

that there is no applicability of either Section 19 or

Section 19A of the Orissa Hindu Religious

Endowments Act, 1951 and Rule 4A of the Orissa

Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959 keeping

the fact into consideration that once the land has

been endowed in favour of the family deity and have

been recorded in the records of right, the title is

shifted from the title holder in favour of the deity,

hence, the land once endowed in favour of the family

deity, it cannot be transferred in the name of the third

party, meaning thereby there is complete embargo in

transfer of the land once endowed by the forefathers

// 3 //

Page 3 of 4

in favour of the family deity, but simultaneously we

are also conscious of the fact that if the immovable

property donated for the purpose of worshiping of

the family deity and if at the time of urgency it will

not be transferred, the whole purpose of donating

immovable property by way of endowment would

frustrate. Although in the Act, 1951 or Rules, 1959

no provision has been made conferring power of

Endowment Commissioner to protect the property of

the family deity, but we thought it proper to

authorize the Endowment Commission concern to

look after the property of the family deity, hence the

deity desirous to transfer immovable property of the

family deity will have to make application before the

Endowment Commissioner showing the reason of the

disposal of the property in the name of third party for

worshiping the deity, shall also to furnish before the

Endowment Commissioner showing reason and if the

Endowment Commissioner is satisfied that the

purpose for dis