Orissa High Court
Lingaraj Sarangi vs State Of Odisha Represented Through on 9 October, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 22170 of 2025
1. Lingaraj Sarangi
2. Smt. Kanakalata Sarangi @ Kanak
Prava Rath'
3. Smt. Suprava Tripathy .... Petitioners
Mr. Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha represented through
its Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Revenue and Disaster
Management Department,
Bhubaneswar
2. Commissioner of Endowments,
Odisha, Odisha Hindu Religious
Endowment, Bhubaneswar .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate
(for Commissioner of Endowments)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 09.10.2025
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 30th September, 2024 (Annexure-6) passed
by learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in
O.A. No. 234 of 2021 is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that
Plot No. 1797/5943, Chaka No.109/1492 under Khata No.839 to an
extent of Ac.0.050 decimals situated in mouza- Nariso, under
Balipatna Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity 'the case
land') stands recorded in the name of the private deity, Shree
Radhagobinda Thakur. The idol of the private deity is being
worshipped in the residential house of the Petitioners. The case land
does not yield any income for the deity. A separate Pujagruha was
intended to be constructed by the Petitioner No.1 who is in
Management of the deity. Hence, the Petitioners filed an
application under Section 19-A of the Odisha Hindu Religious
Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity 'the Act') to get 'No Objection
Certificate' to alienate the case land to meet the expenses incurred
for daily niti kanti of the deity and for construction of the
Pujagruha out of the consideration amount. Although, the Inspector
of Endowments, Bhubaneswar submitted his report on 17th August,
2022 (Annexture-4), but did not mention about the necessity for
alienation of the case land in his report. Learned Commissioner also
did not make any endeavour to find out whether the case land is
required to be alienated for the benefit of the deity. Learned
Commissioner merely holding that "It is not known how the
financial condition of the deity will be improved with the
consideration amount by alienating a small piece of land
measuring only five decimals (Ac.0.05 dec.). Kissam (Type) of the
case land is unknown. P.W.1 has not stated in his evidence that the
land over which the deity's bijeshali of situates. The
aforementioned facts are highly essential for a just decision of an
application under Section 19-A OHRE Act, which unfortunately are
missing from the evidence PW.1." Accordingly, learned
Commissioner by its judgment under Annexure-6 dismissed the
application under Section 19-A of the Act.
4. It is further submitted that the Petitioners have clearly stated
that the land in question does not yield any income for the deity as
it is water logged during rainy season. Further, to bear the expenses
of daily niti kanti and sebapuja of the deity and to construct a
separate Puja room, the case land is required to be alienated.
Admittedly, the Petitioner No.1 is a retired government servant and
does not have sufficient funds to meet expenses of daily niti kanti
and for construction of separate Puja room for the private deity. No
endeavour was made by learned Commissioner to make any
enquiry in that regard. Hence, the impugned judgment under
Annexure-6 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
5. Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Commissioner of
Endowments on the other hand submits that the Petitioners did
not give any particulars with regard to the funds required to meet
the daily niti kanti of the deity and for construction of the Puja
room. Although, the report of the Inspector of Endowments does
not disclose the necessity of alienation of deity's property, but
the evidence on record adduced by the Petitioner No.1 is grossly
insufficient to consider an application under Section 19-A of the
Act. Thus, learned Commissioner has therefore not committed
any error in dismissing the application under Section 19-A of the
Act. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, this Court finds that upon receipt of an
application under Section 19-A of the Act, learned Commissioner
directed the Inspector of Endowments, Bhubaneswar to make an
enquiry and submit a report with regard to necessity for
alienation of the land of the private deity. The Inspector of
Endowments, Bhubaneswar submitted his Report No.120/
Judicial E.C. dated 17th August, 2022 (Annexure-4). Perusal of
the report does not reveal that the Inspector of Endowments had
made any endeavour to find out the necessity of alienation of the
property in question.
7. It is the case of the Petitioner No.1 that he is a retired
government servant and does not have sufficient fund to meet the
expenses of daily niti kanti and also for construction of separate
Puja room for the deity. In course of argument, Mr. Chhatoi,
learned counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that in a similar
circumstance, learned Commissioner had allowed an application
filed by the present Petitioners under Section 19-A of the Act in
O.A. No. 235 of 2021 (Annexure-8), but refused the relief in the
instant application.
8. On perusal of the impugned judgment under Annexure-6,
this Court finds that learned Commissioner of Endowments has not
made any endeavour to ascertain whether alienation of the property
in question is required to meet the expenses of daily niti kanti of the
deity and also to construct a new Puja room for the deity. Since the
report of the Inspector of Endowments is silent about such
requirement, learned Commissioner could have directed him (the
Inspector of Endowments) to conduct further enquiry and to submit
detailed report. Of course, the Petitioners have not given details of
the expenses of daily niti kanti of the deity and fund required for
construction of the separate Puja room. But, it is submitted that in
similar circumstance, learned Commissioner had allowed an
application under Section 19-A in O.A. No. 235 of 2021.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that the Petition
under Section 19-A of the Act requires fresh consideration. Hence,
the impugned order under Annexure-6 is set aside and the matter is
remitted to learned Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar to
adjudicate O.A. No.234 of 2021 filed under Section 19-A of the
Act afresh, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
The Petitioners, if so advised, may adduce further evidence in
support of their case. Learned Commissioner, if feels necessary,
may also direct the Inspector of Endowments, Bhubaneswar to
conduct further enquiry and submit a detailed report.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merit of the case of the Petitioners in the application under
Section 19-A of the Act.
11. The Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Sukanta
Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:53:50
