Bishnu Chandra Behera And Others vs Shri Radha Damodar Swamy Bije
2026 Latest Caselaw 3963 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bishnu Chandra Behera And Others vs Shri Radha Damodar Swamy Bije on 29 April, 2026

Author: K.R. Mohapatra

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 30-Apr-2026 10:50:16



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                RVWPET No.223 of 2025

                                  Bishnu Chandra Behera and others          ...            Petitioners
                                                                  Mr. Baibaswata Panigrahi, Advocate
                                                         -versus-
                                  Shri Radha Damodar Swamy Bije,            ...       Opposite Parties
                                  Ganjam and others
                                                                   Mr. Soumyajyoti Biswal, Advocate
                                                                    (For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2)
                                                                      Miss Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate
                                                                     (For Opposite Party Nos.8 and 9)

                                                CORAM:
                                                JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                                JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

                                                            ORDER

           Order No.                                       29.04.2026

               4.            1.          This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Vide order dated 5th March, 2026, learned counsel for the Petitioners was directed to take out fresh notice on Opposite Party Nos.4, 5 and 7.

3. Office note indicates that neither unserved notice nor Postal AD is received from Opposite Party Nos.4 and 7, but as per office note, postal tracking report indicates that item containing notice on those Opposite Parties have been delivered to the addressee. Postal tracking report further indicates that unserved notice returned from Opposite Party No.5 with remark 'addressee refused'. Hence, notice on Opposite Party Nos.4, 5 and 7 is treated to be sufficient.

(K.R.Mohapatra) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge PTO

Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 30-Apr-2026 10:50:16

// 2 //

5. IA No.341 of 2025 and RVWPET No.223 of 2025

1. The IA has been filed for condonation of delay of 730 days in filing the instant Review Petition.

2. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel submits that the review Petitioners are the villagers. If the orders passed in W.P.(C) 9043 of 2023 is allowed to operate, the review Petitioners being the villagers will be highly prejudiced, as the land in question, which is in the kisam of 'Sarbasadharan', will be amalgamated to the Deity's property and the villagers will be deprived from enjoying the same. They were not made parties to the writ petition. Hence, they had no occasion to know about the order sought to be reviewed. When the trustees of the religious institution raised boundary wall over the land in question, they came to know about the order passed in the writ petition and have filed the Review Petition. In view of the above, delay occurred in filing the review petition. As such, delay occurred in filing the Review Petition is bona fide and not intentional. Hence, he prays for condoning the delay in filing the Review Petition and to adjudicate the same on merit.

3. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and Miss Naidu, learned counsel appearing for Commissioner of Endowments vehemently object to the application for condonation of delay as well as the Review Petition on the ground that the review-Petitioners have no locus standi to file the Review Petition.

Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 30-Apr-2026 10:50:16

// 3 //

4. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 7, who are the trustees of the Deity, Shree Radha Damodar Swamy Bije, Ganjam filed an application under Section 68(1) of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Act') (O.A. No. 1 of 2009) for eviction of Opposite Party No.10 stating that he is in unauthorized occupation of the Deity's property. Though Opposite Party No.10 claimed to be the Priest of the religious institution, Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur rejected the application filed under Section 68 of the Act. Hence, Opposite Party Nos.1 to 7 filed revision under Section 9 of the Act being RC No.13 of 2013. Learned Commissioner of Endowments, vide his judgment dated 4th January, 2023 directed as under:-

"That the Revision is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party, however without costs. The impugned order dt. 31.7.2013 passed by the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur in O.A.No.1 of 2009 of his file is set aside. It is ordered that the OP is liable to be directed to deliver possession of the schedule lands along with structure there over in favour of the hereditary trustee of the deity institution Sri Radha Damodar Swamy bije Ganjam in the district of Ganjam. The learned Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur is directed to take necessary steps in terms of section 68 (2) of the OHRE Act, 1951 for delivery of possession of the schedule lands in favour of the hereditary trustee of the case deity.

The Revision is disposed of accordingly."

While directing so, learned Commissioner of Endowments observed as under:-

".....If at all, the OP claims to be having some right over the schedule land, at least over the schedule

Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 30-Apr-2026 10:50:16

// 4 //

plot No.1265/2952 then he can take recourse of the relevant law in the Civil Court to establish that he has a better right or title over the schedule plot No.1265/2952 of Khata No.444 of mouza Ganjam than that of the deity. Hence, it is ordered-...."

The Opposite Party Nos.1 to 7 being aggrieved by said objection granting leave to Opposite Party No.10 to file Suit moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.9043 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 24th July, 2023 with the following direction.

11. Undisputed facts are that opposite party no.3 never got appointment as servant, priest or pujari in the temple. In the circumstance, said opposite party is otherwise not entitled to be in possession of the temple premises. As such in the working of section 68 for administration of the temple and its property, is covered under bar of suits in respect of administration of religious institutions provided under section 73.

12. Petitioners' contention is accepted. Liberty granted under paragraph 9 of order dated 4th January, 2023 in R.C. Case no. 13 of 2013 is set aside and quashed. It is made clear rest of the order remains as made.

13. The writ petition is disposed of."

(emphasis supplied)

5. In view of the above, Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and Miss Naidu, learned counsel for Endowments submit that the review Petitioners, who claim to be the villagers, are no way prejudiced by the orders sought to be reviewed, i.e., order dated 24th July, 2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9043 of 2023 (Annexure-1). They further submit that liberty granted to Opposite Party No.10 was only set aside by this Court in the orders sought to be reviewed, but the orders of eviction remained intact. Since the review Petitioners have not challenged the order of eviction passed under Section 9 of the Act passed in RC No.13 of 2013 they have no locus standi to maintain the Review Petition.