Orissa High Court
Shri Radha Damodar Swamy Bije vs Commissioner Of Endowment on 10 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 9043 of 2023
(Through hybrid mode)
Shri Radha Damodar Swamy Bije, .... Petitioners
Ganjam and others
Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Commissioner of Endowment, .... Opposite Parties
Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others
Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
10.04.2023
Order No.
1. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners
and submits, impugned is judgment dated 4th January, 2023 made by
the Commissioner, pursuant to restoration of the revision by our order
dated 4th November, 2022 in W.P.(C) no.25987 of 2022 (petitioners'
own case).
// 2 //
2. He submits, there was liberty granted by impugned judgment
which is illegal. Relevant sentence from impugned order is extracted
and reproduced below.
"xx xx xx If at all, the OP claims to be having some
right over the schedule land, at least over the schedule
plot No.1265/2952 then he can take recourse of the
relevant law in the Civil Court to establish that he has a
better right or title over the schedule plot No.1265/2952
of khata No.444 of mouza Gamja, than that of the deity.
xx xx xx"
3. He submits, there was finding in our aforesaid order dated 4th
November, 2022 that opposite party no.3 had said on oath, he is in
occupation in entire temple premises along with kitchen area. Relied
upon sentence, from our said order is extracted and reproduced below.
"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."
In the circumstances, the eviction is to take place under provisions in
section 68 of Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.
4. On query from Court Mr. Dash relies on section 73. The
section is quoted below.
// 3 //
"73. Bar of suits in respect of administration of
Religious Institutions:- (1) No suit or other legal
proceeding in respect of the administration of a
Religious institution or in respect of any other matter or
dispute for determining or deciding which provision is
made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of law,
except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of
this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in this Section shall affect
the right of the Trustee appointed under the Act of a
Religious institution to institute a suit to enforce the
pecuniary or property rights of the institution or the
rights of such institution as a beneficiary."
(emphasis supplied)
6. He submits sub-section (3) under section 25, regarding recovery
of immovable trust property unlawfully alienated, provides for the
person aggrieved by the action of the Collector as may institute a suit in
the Civil Court to establish his rights. In this case, where the
encroacher's unauthorized occupation of entire temple premises stand
recorded in our aforesaid order, it is a case falling under section 68,
regarding recovery of the premises from the unauthorized occupant. No
question arises of establishing right, title or interest of a person in
unauthorized occupation, by separate suit under scheme of the Act.
// 4 //
7. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the
Commissioner and submits, the judgment was duly made in line with
petitioners' grievance before the office.
8. Issue notice along with this order on opposite party no.3 by
registered/speed post with AD. Petitioners will put in requisites.
9. List on 1st May, 2023 along with record of W.P.(C) no.25987 of
2022.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Sks
