Orissa High Court
Bada Odiya Math vs State Of Odisha on 12 September, 2025
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). NO. 13816 OF 2017
1. Bada Odiya Math, Puri
2. Radhaballava Math, Puri
3. Radhakanta Math, Puri
4. Uttar Parswa Math, Puri
5. Kataki Math, Puri .... Petitioners
Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate
-versus-
1. State of Odisha
2. Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu,
Jagannath Temple, Puri
3. The Secretary, Dept. of Law,
Government of Odisha, BBSR
4. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Puri
5. The Commissioner of Endowment,
Odisha
6. The Tahasildar, Puri .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 12.09.2025
09. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioners in this writ petition pray for the following relief:
"In view of the above facts and circumstances stated above, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue
a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writ(s) and
direction or direction(s) thereby;
A) The Circular No.3776 dtd. 02.02.2017 issued by the Revenue
and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha under
Annexure-5 and Revenue Department Letter No.39967 dtd.20.12.2016 as
per Annexure-4, so far as it applies to the Petitioners-Maths be quashed,
B) Direct that the lands and properties belonging to the Petitioner
Maths be recorded as per the provisions contained in the Puri Shri
Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 and the Shri Jagannath
Temple Act, 1954 and strictly in accordance with the ratio decided in a
Constitution Bench decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 256 particularly
the finding recorded in Para-41of the said judgment;
C) Declare that "Amrutamanohi" properties are properties which
are endowed to the Maths by the devotees for a particular service which
is done to Lord Jagannath by the Mahantas on behalf of the Maths and
that the "Amrutamanohi" properties are endowed to the Maths and
neither to the Mahantas nor endowed to Lord Jagannath as was held in
Srinivas Ramanuj Das Vrs. Suryanarayan Das and others reported in
AIR 1967 SC 256;
D) Declare that the ratio decided in Srinivas Ramanuj Das Vrs.
Suryanarayan Das and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 256 with regard
to the source and nature of endowments of "Amrutamanohi" properties
shall only apply while recording the immovable properties in the name of
the Petitioner-Maths and any other judgment to the contrary is per-
incuriam and as such have no legally binding force;
E) Declare that the endowment and properties consisting of
"Amrutamanohi" properties of the Maths which are sectional and
denominational religious institutions are separate and distinct than that
of the endowment and properties of Temple of Lord Jagannath of Puri
and that the petitioners are only entitled to administer the same in
accordance with Article-26(d) of Constitution of India;
F) Declare that the lands endowed to the Temple of Lord
Jagannath and recorded in the Record of Right as Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu Marfat Temple Managing Committee are distinct from
""Amrutamanohi"" lands or properties endowed to the petitioners Maths
and record of rights as Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu with
Mahantas/petitioner Maths as Marfatdars and that the respondent No-2
Managing Committee of Shri Jagannath Temple had no right over the
said land;
G) Declare that the "Amrutamanohi" lands endowed to the
petitioners Maths and recorded in the record of rights with
Mahantas/Petitioner Maths as Marfatdars are alienable with the
permission of the Endowment Commissioner and the tenants recorded in
Record of Rights and tenants subsequently inducted by the Ex-Debottar
intermediaries were deemed to be tenants under the Respondent No-1
State Government before vesting and after vesting on 18/03/1974 with
prior permission of the Endowment Commissioner under Section-19 of
O.H.R.E Act, 1951;
H) Grant any relief/order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit or
proper under the facts and circumstances of the petition in the interest of
justice;
And for which act of kindness the Petitioners shall, as in duty
bound, ever pray."
3. At the outset, Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the Petitioners
submits that very recently some events that took place since 2017 came
to the knowledge of the Petitioners which is required to be incorporated
for proper adjudication. Hence, the writ petition may require
exhaustive amendment. He, therefore, submits that interest of justice
would be best served if the Petitioners are permitted to file a fresh writ
petition with better particulars. He, therefore, prays for withdrawal of
the writ petition.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as
withdrawn with a liberty to the Petitioners to file a fresh one with better
particulars within a period of one month hence.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA (Savitri Ratho)
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Judge
Date: 12-Sep-2025 19:28:15
puspa
