Shri Radha Damodar Swamy vs Commissioner Of Endowment
2022 Latest Caselaw 6403 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No. 25987 of 2022
                                (Through hybrid mode)

            Shri Radha Damodar Swamy, Bije, ....         Petitioners
            Ganajm and others
                                 Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Advocate
                                  -versus-

            Commissioner of Endowment,             ....    Opposite Parties
            Bhubaneswar and others
                                                   Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
                                                          (O.P. Nos.1 & 2)
                                        Mr. Ghanashyam Dash, Advocate
                                                          (O.P. No.3)


                     CORAM:
                                JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                       ORDER

04.11.2022 Order No.

03. 1. Mr. M.K. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of

petitioners and submits, they are hereditary trustees of Shri Radha

Damodar Swamy, Bije. His clients are aggrieved by impugned

judgment dated 13th September, 2022, made by Court of the

Commissioner of Endowments, as not based on relevant evidence and

hence, perverse.

2. On enquiry from Court, he demonstrates from order dated 31st

July, 2013, made by the Court below that it erroneously held there is

absolutely no concrete evidence to show that opposite party no.3 is

// 2 //

staying in the temple premises as alleged by his clients. His clients

applied for revision and impugned judgment, wherein to the false

stand of said opposite party residing in their own house at Bada Bazar

of Ganajm was relied upon by the Commissioner.

3. We by our order dated 26th October, 2022 heard the parties on

moving of the writ petition before us. Paragraph-3 in the said order is

reproduced below.

"Mr. G. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.3. Said opposite party is to inform this Court whether or not he is in possession of scheduled land or house or has put lock on door thereof, being subject matter of controversy before the Court below and in revision. To this effect said opposite party will file affidavit. It will be accepted on adjourned date, upon advance copy served."

Opposite party no.3 has filed counter pursuant to the direction. In it,

said opposite party has said on oath, he is in occupation in entire

temple premises along with kitchen area.

4. Mr. G. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite

party no.3 and on query from Court submits, said statement in the

counter has been stated true to knowledge of his client.

// 3 //

5. Impugned judgment is set aside and quashed as divorced from

the fact. It is perverse.

6. The revision is restored to the Commissioner for expeditious

consideration and disposal. Court expects it will be done within two

months from date.

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

Sks/AKPradhan