Orissa High Court
Sri Sri Radhakrishna & Sri Sri Hanuman vs Prabin Kumar Das & Another on 7 January, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MSA No.33 of 2002
Sri Sri Radhakrishna & Sri Sri Hanuman .... Appellants
Mahapravu, represented by Herdetary
Trustee Sri Gouranga alias Gourahari
Panigrahi (Dead)
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
-Versus-
Prabin Kumar Das & another .... Respondents
None
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
07.01.2025
Order No.
11. 1. Heard Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the appellants.
2. None appears for the respondents at the time of call.
3. Instant appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the
impugned judgment in F.A. No.5 of 2001 in a proceeding under
Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, whereby,
the order in O.A. No.2 of 1999 under Section 41 thereof was
confirmed vide Annexure-2 on the grounds that the same is not
legally tenable and hence to be set aside with consequential
directions issued.
4. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
submits that the application under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu
Religious Endowments Act filed by the father of appellant Nos.1(a)
to 1(f) was disposed of followed by a decision under Annexure-2,
which has been confirmed in F.A. No.5 of 2001. It is submitted that
Record of Right has been issued in favour of the deity in question in
the meantime. The contention is that the appellants succeed to the
private institution. The further contention is that the appeal in RSA
No.341 of 2004 was filed by one Radhamohan Sahu,, wherein, the
father of appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(f) was the respondent and the same
was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 4th October,
2010. It is contented that necessary enquiry was held by the
Inspector of Endowments with report as at Annexure-1, which
suggests the subject to be a private institution, the fact which has not
been duly taken cognizance of by the authorities below, hence,
therefore, the impugned judgment under Annexure-3 is liable to be
interfered with.
5. In course of hearing, Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate
for the appellants filed a memo with RoRs issued in the name of the
deity in question and also the order in RSA No.341 of 2004.
6. By claiming that the father of the appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(f)
was prevented from producing the evidence so to prove the
institution to be a private one, Mr. Routray, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the matter may
be remanded back for fresh decision by learned Additional Assistant
Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur. The contention is that
the entire evidence is to be examined by the said authority for a
proper hearing with a final decision on the subject matter in dispute,
hence, remand is necessary particularly, in view of the disposal of
RSA No.341 of 2004.
7. Considering the memo filed today in Court with necessary
documents including a copy of the order RSA No.341 of 2004 and
the fact that the father of appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(f) produced
claimed to have failed to produce the necessary documents, the
Court is of the view that the matter should be remanded back for a
decision afresh, as the same would rather serve the purpose and
meet the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the appeal stands disposed of with the
impugned judgment under Annexure-3 in F.A. No.5 of 2001 is
being set aside with the restoration of the proceeding in O.A. No.2
of 1999 for a fresh decision in terms of Section 41 of Orissa Hindu
Religious Endowments Act providing a reasonable opportunity of
hearing to appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(f) and to dispose it of in
accordance with law at the earliest preferably within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and till such
time, a final decision is rendered, status quo to be maintained in
respect of the institution in question.
10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok
Designation: Asst. Registrar-Cum-Senior Secretary
