Basanti Behera And Another vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2258 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No. 17305 of 2022
                                (Through hybrid mode)


            Basanti Behera and another             ....          Petitioners

                                                   Mr. N.K. Deo, Advocate

                                       -versus-

            State of Odisha and another            ....     Opposite Parties

                                                   Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA
                                                   Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate


                      CORAM:
                                JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                       ORDER

20.03.2023 Order No.

3. 1. Mr. Deo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and

submits, the land was purchased by her husband, since deceased. At

the time of purchase there was no necessity for obtaining permission

in prescribed form under inserted by amendment section 19-A in

Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. There was dispute

between the wife and husband. It led to a suit filed and compromise

decree, whereby the land was conveyed to the wife. The wife then

// 2 //

wanting to sell the land had approached the Commission, for

permission.

2. It appears from impugned judgment that inter alia, entry in the

record was relied upon to refuse to permit the sale. The entry shows

the land belonging to the deity marfat the widow.

3. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State and Ms. Naidu, learned advocate

appears on behalf of the Commissioner.

4. We observe that in event petitioners apply and are able to

obtain correction in the record to show that the land came to

petitioners by way of compromise in the suit from her husband, since

deceased, who had duly purchased the land in year 1999, in that event

petitioners may approach the Commissioner once again for

permission. Upon change in the record the Commissioner will have

new facts and circumstances to consider. If that happens, impugned

order will not stand in the way for the Commissioner to consider

petitioners' application for issuance of permission in prescribed form,

to sell the land in question. We make it clear that the administration

must obtain satisfaction on facts, for correction, if any, to be made in

the record.

// 3 //

5. Mr. Deo prays for return of original annexures 2 and 5 upon

undertaking to file true copies thereof. Petitioners are permitted to

have return of the original upon furnishing true copies.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of as above.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge Sks