Orissa High Court
Nangai Majhi @ Murmu And Others vs Sri Jahirawanga Thakurani on 28 January, 2025
Bench: B. P. Routray, Murahari Sri Raman
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGRAM DAS
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 28-Jan-2025 14:13:33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2515 of 2025
Nangai Majhi @ Murmu and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Digambara Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Sri Jahirawanga Thakurani, .... Opposite Parties
represented through Managing Trustee
and another
Mr. P.K. Nath, Advocate for
Opposite Party No.2
Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate for
Opposite Party No.1
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
28.01.2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners as well as Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the
Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments-Opposite
Party No.2 and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
Opposite Party No.1-Managing Trustee.
2. The Deity, namely, Sri Jahirawanga Thakurani, At-Podapada,
P.S.-Rasgobindapur, Dist-Mayurbhanj is represented by the
Managing Trustee, Sri Gopinath Murmu as per the description of
Opposite Party No.1.
3. The Petitioners, claiming to be in possession of the deity's
property as Marfatdars, have challenged the impugned order
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
under Annexure-1 passed by the Commissioner of Endowments,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar under Section 9 of the Odisha Hindu
Religious Endowments Act, 1951 in R.C. No.31 of 2018. The
major grounds of challenge of the Petitioners are that, the
Petitioners are in possession over the property of the deity in
question since long; secondly, the Petitioners being the Members
of the Scheduled Tribe Community are protected by provisions of
the Odisha Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by
Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956 and thirdly, the deity is a
private deity.
4. Having gone to the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2024
passed by the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar under Annexure-1, it is seen that the contentions of
the Petitioners are prima facie incorrect. What is claimed by the
Petitioners as the owner of the property of the deity in question, is
found untrue as they are the Marfatdar only as per the ROR under
Annexures-8 & 9. When it is admitted that the deity is
represented by the Trustee-Gopinath Murmu as per the order
passed in his favour under Section 27 of the OHRE Act, said
Gopinath Murmu has certainly the right to proceed against the
illegal possessors of the property of the deity, and accordingly, he
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
approached the Commissioner of Endowment under Section 68 of
the OHRE Act to protect the property of the deity. At his behest,
the order for restoration of possession has been passed by the
competent authority under Section 68 of the OHRE Act and
consequent Form-L was issued, which was challenged in
Revision under Section 9 of the OHRE Act before the
Commissioner. The Commissioner after dealing with all aspects
with regard to rights of the Petitioners vis-a-vis the trustee legally
appointed by the competent authority, has dismissed the revision
filed by the Petitioners. It is true that the order of restoration of
properties under Section 68 of the OHRE Act has been passed in
the interest of deity, who is a perpetual minor. So far as the rights
of the Petitioners as the Members of the Scheduled Tribe
Community is concerned, their status as Marfatdar of deity's
property would not attract the provisions of the Odisha Scheduled
Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes)
Regulation, 1956 in their favour to protect their possession. When
a Member of the Scheduled Tribe is not the owner of the property
and admittedly the deity, who is considered as perpetual minor, is
the owner, the appointed trustee has the authority to proceed in
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
accordance with law to protect and restore the properties of the
deity.
5. The submissions that the deity is a private one is found
complete misconceived on the face of record. The Petitioners
when do not dispute the appointment of Trust Board by the
competent Authority under Section 27 of the OHRE Act, there
cannot be any dispute with regard to status of the deity as public
deity. In absence of any material to satisfy the declaration
regarding private deity, such contention raised on behalf of the
Petitioners are rejected outright.
6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed being without any
merit.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Laxmikant
