Sri Sri Satyabadi Gopinath Dev ... vs State Of Odisha And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 7412 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                              WP(C) No.28837 of 2022
                              (Through Hybrid mode)

            Sri Sri Satyabadi Gopinath Dev Bije ....                 Petitioner
            Phula Alasa, Puri
                                        Mr. Binayak Prasad Mohanty, Advocate

                                         -versus-
            State of Odisha and others              ....         Opposite Parties


                                                         Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA

                                                         Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
            CORAM:

            JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
            JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA


                                    ORDER

Order No.                          14.12.2022

  04.       1.      Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of

petitioner-deity. He submits, impugned is judgment dated 25th July,

2022 made by the Commissioner of Endowments. He draws attention

to page 9 of the judgment to show that the Commissioner had material

by way of an order passed by Commissioner, Consolidation, directing

to record name of deity in the tenant column as tenant in respect of

// 2 //

the land, which was originally recorded in the 1927-28 settlement

RoR in its name. He submits, in spite thereof the Commissioner

rejected claim of his client for being put in possession of the land. On

query from Court he submits, opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 are

presently occupying the land.

2. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

Commissioner and points out from page 12 of the judgment that

opposite parties before the Commissioner had purchased scheduled

land from legal heir and successor of Lal Bihari Das by deed dated

29th January, 2007. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional

Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.

3. It appears from impugned judgment, primarily on reason

W.P.(C) no.26862 of 2017 is pending, wherein order of the

Consolidation, Commissioner stood challenged, the Commissioner

held that petitioner had not succeeded proving its case. The

Commissioner thereafter went into analysis of evidence and held that

though it is true none of the sale transactions were with permission

under section 19 of Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951

but, the lands not having proved to be of the deity institution or any

other trust, there is no necessity for such permission. In this

// 3 //

connection we put query and Ms. Naidu informed us that private

opposite parties or any other person does not have their names

recorded in respect of the land.

4. Issue notice along with this order on opposite party nos.2 to 4

by registered/speed post with A.D. Petitioner will put in requisites.

Private opposite parties are expected to come ready for hearing and

disposal of the writ petition.

5. List on 11th January, 2023.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( S. K. Mishra ) Judge Prasant