Satyaban Padhi And Others vs Commissioner Of Endowment
2023 Latest Caselaw 8928 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 W.P.(C) No.7862 of 2023
                                 (Through Hybrid mode)

            Satyaban Padhi and others              ....                       Petitioners
                                                            Mr. M. K. Dash, Advocate

                                             -versus-
            Commissioner of Endowment,             ....                 Opposite Parties
            Bhubaneswar and others
                                                            Mr. A. K. Nath, Advocate

                                            Mr. G. N. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. no.5

            CORAM:
            JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
            JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                          ORDER

09.08.2023 Order No.

04. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners, who

are ten in number. All of them claim right to declaration of hereditary

trusteeship. Of them petitioner nos. 1 to 3 already obtained the

declaration.

2. He submits, those of his clients, who are also in line of succession

to be appointed hereditary trustee, were not heard in making of impugned

judgment dated 30th November, 2022. This happened by omission to

direct notice under order-I rule 8 in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Without prejudice he submits further, it will appear from interim order

// 2 //

dated 8th March, 2022, earlier made by the Commissioner that application

for intervention was rejected and thereafter impugned judgment passed.

Drawing attention to the explanation in section 30 of Odisha Hindu

Religious Endowments Act, 1951 he submits, by impugned order persons

were declared to be hereditary trustees without having due regard to

claims of those who had sought to intervene. Hence, impugned order is

illegal and had been made with material irregularity.

3. Mr. Nath, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

Commissioner and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, for opposite party no.5.

We had earlier noticed that opposite party nos.4 and 6 went and go

unrepresented, inspite of good service.

4. We have perused impugned judgment. We find, petitioners before

the Commissioner were widow and daughters of Bhagaban Padhi, who

was son of Kelu Charan Padhi, the declared hereditary trustee. After

demise of Kelu Charan Padhi, Bhagaban Padhi applied for being declared

but during pendency of the proceeding, he died. Subsequent thereto sons

of Bhagaban Padhi were declared as hereditary trustees leaving out the

widow and daughters. Hence, they petitioned the Commissioner to be

declared as such under section 30 in Odisha Hindu Religious

Endowments Act, 1951.

// 3 //

5. We are in possession of submission made on behalf of petitioners

that petitioner nos.1 to 3 have already been declared hereditary trustees.

The intervention application was made by two persons, Bichitra Kumar

Padhi and petitioner no.2. Bichitra Kumar Padhi has not joined as

petitioner. As aforesaid, Adal Padhi is petitioner no.2, already declared

hereditary trustee. In the circumstances, petitioners' contention that the

intervention application was erroneously rejected has no legs to stand.

6. At this stage Mr. Dash submits, rest of his clients had made

independent petition for declaration of hereditary trusteeship and same is

pending. We do not find any reason to interfere with impugned judgment

as it does not contain any view or finding in respect of rest of petitioners,

to affect them in prosecuting their petition for declaration of their

hereditary trusteeship.

7. No interference is warranted. On observations made above, the

writ petition is disposed of.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( S. K. Mishra ) Signature Not Verified Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 09-Aug-2023 18:06:59

Prasant