Orissa High Court
Ashok Kumar Satpathy vs Commissioner Of Endowments on 28 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.25135 of 2023
Ashok Kumar Satpathy .... Petitioner
Mr. R.C. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
Commissioner of Endowments, .... Opposite Parties
Odisha and others
Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
(For the Commissioner)
Mr. A.K. Nanda, Advocate,
(Additional Government Advocate)
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 28.08.2023
01. 1. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner
and submits, his client is claiming under one Bimala Dibya, since
deceased. Lease was obtained by the deceased under common order
passed in the cases mentioned in paragraph 3 of impugned
judgment dated 21st April, 2023. He draws attention to the common
order dated 6th September, 1956 made by the Commissioner of
Endowments. Pursuant to the common order, salami and rent were
paid up to 18th March, 1974, date of vesting. Pursuant to the
vesting, though possession was recorded in favour of his client but
the temple administration, by suppressing facts obtained settlement
of the land as intermediary in khas possession. Impugned judgment
made under section 25 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments
Act, 1951, directs eviction of his client, who is in authorized
possession of the land. Impugned judgment is bad as it is not based
on facts. There be interference.
2. On query from Court Mr. Rath draws attention to a few
receipts disclosed in the petition from page 36 onwards. He
submits, his client being in possession of a small plot, proportion of
the salami and rent were duly paid as evidenced by the receipts.
3. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the
Commissioner and Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional
Government Advocate, for State.
4. Mr. Nanda submits, there is no record with the
administrative Offices discharging function under Odisha Estates
Abolition Act, 1951 to recognizing petitioner or his predecessor as
tenant in respect of the plot.
5. It appears from paragraphs 7 and 8 in impugned judgment
that entry claimed by the petitioner in the record is 'Dafayat
Dakhal', a right to enjoy the fruits standing over the land.
Furthermore, petitioner could not produce executed lease. Hence, in
the summary proceeding the judgment was made directing recovery
of possession from petitioner.
6. Section 25 provides for summary enquiry to be made by the
Commissioner. It has been made to result in the judgment.
Petitioner is claiming to be in lawful possession as having had
obtained lease and paid rent up to the date of vesting. Petitioner's
further case is that settlement made in favour of the deity was not
on notice to him or his predecessor. Court has ascertained from
petitioner that after vesting he did not pay any rent. Submission of
State is that in the administrative records relating to the Act of
1951, petitioner does not figure.
7. Situation emerging as in last preceding paragraphs is one of
disputed questions of fact, which were not gone into in the
summary enquiry made by the Commissioner and cannot be gone
into in writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, sub-section (3) of
section 25 provides remedy to petitioner by instituting a suit in the
civil Court to establish his right. In event he does so, he may make
prayer for protection in the mean time.
8. With above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
P.Pradhan Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 28-Aug-2023 19:15:42
