Orissa High Court
M/S. Muralidhara Dutta And vs The Commissioner Of Endowments on 30 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 36836 of 2022
(Through hybrid mode)
M/s. Muralidhara Dutta and .... Petitioners
another
-versus-
The Commissioner of Endowments, .... Opposite Party
Odisha, Bhubaneswar
Advocates appeared in the case:
For petitioners - Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate
For Opp. Party - Ms. P. Naidu
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 30.01.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners
and submits, agricultural land, which his clients want to sell, stands
recorded in the RoR in name of the deity as 'Nijagruha'. His clients
applied for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' under section 19-A of
Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. The Commissioner by
// 2 //
impugned judgment dated 11th November, 2022 said that since petitioner
no.1 stands recorded as 'Sebayat' in respect of the deity, he is only
caretaker of the property. He has no right to alienate property belonging
to the deity unless it is shown that in fact he had acquired the property in
name of the deity. Such evidence is lacking. Furthermore, from report of
Inspector of Endowments it appeared, inter alia that prior to date of
inspection, the deity was being worshipped at a pucca temple in the
village and public were getting chance for free darshan. He submits,
entry in the RoR is sufficient for prima facie appreciation that it is a
private deity. He seeks interference.
2. Ms. Niadu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the
Commissioner. On query from Court, she draws attention to rule-4-A in
Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959. She submits, sub-
rule (3) provides for prima facie satisfaction. On further query from
Court, she submits no objections were received.
3. Sub-rule(3) in rule 4A is reproduced below.
"(3) On receiving the objection if any, within the
stipulated period and after giving reasonable opportunity
of hearing to the parties if the Commissioner is prima
facie satisfied that the institution in question is not a
public religious institution for which no sanction under
// 3 //
section 19 of the Act is required, he shall, grant "No
Objection Certificate" in Form AA to these rules."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Procedure for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' stands
provided for in rule 4-A. It is only on receiving objection that sub-rule
(3) enables the Commissioner to obtain prima facie satisfaction that the
institution in question is not a public religious institution. Facts in this
case reveal that the land stands recorded in the RoR in name of the deity
as 'Nijagruha'. Further fact is absence of objection. We have also
perused the inspection report and find that the villagers admitted that the
deity resides in the private house of petitioners and they have no access.
This, in our view, is sufficient for prima facie appreciation that the deity
is not a public deity. Again, there being no objection, enquiry into
source of title of petitioner, as having purchased the land in name of the
deity, is also not warranted. It must be remembered that the appreciation
to be is regarding private deity. What appears to have happened is that
the Commissioner found prima facie that the deity may be a public
deity, going by the villagers contention that earlier it used to reside in a
pucca temple of the village.
5. Petitioners are entitled to 'No Objection Certificate'. Impugned
judgment is set aside and quashed. The Commissioner will issue the 'No
// 4 //
Objection Certificate' in prescribed form within three weeks of
communication.
6. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Sks
