Rahul Das vs State Of Odisha on 16 January, 2026

Author: K.R. Mohapatra

Bench: K.R. Mohapatra

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                  WP(C) No. 9511 of 2021

 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
                                  ***
        Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahapravu,
        Bije at Old Berhampur (Khaspa
        Street) represented through;
        1. Rahul Das
        2. Krushna Chandra Choudhury
        3. Chitiasen Mohapatra
        4. Chandrasekhar Bhuyan
        5. Pramod Kumar Sahu
        6. Susanta Behera
        7. Narayan Mohapatra               ....      Petitioners
                               -Versus-
         1. State of Odisha, represented
            through Ministry of Law,
            Odisha, Bhubaneswar
         2. Commissioner of Endowments,
            Odisha, Bhubaneswar
         3. Iswar Das                      ....       Opposite Parties
         4. Santosh Kumar Panigrahi




     Advocates appeared:
           For Petitioners     : Mr. Satyabadi Mantry, Advocate
            For Opposite Parties : Mr. Ajodhya Ranjan Dash
                                   Additional Government Advocate
                                   (For Opp. Party No.1)
                                 Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, Advocate
                                 (For Opp. Party No.2)
                                  Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate
                                 (For Opp. Party No.3)



WP(C) No. 9511 of 2021                                  Page 1 of 8
                   CORAM:
                       MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                       MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Heard and disposed of on : 16.01.2026
           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   JUDGMENT

By the Bench:

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioners in this writ application seek to assail the order dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure-2) passed by the State Government in Appeal No.04 of 2018. The Petitioners also pray for setting aside the impugned sale deed under Annexure- 5 holding it to be invalid and void and also pray for other consequential relief.

3. Mr. Mantry, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that learned Commissioner of Endowments pursuant to an application under Section 19 of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity 'the Act') in O.A. No. 164 of 2015 made by the trustee of Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahapravu Bije, Berhampur vide his order dated 08.02.2018 refused to grant permission to alienate the immovable property of the said Deity.

4. It is submitted that while adjudicating the matter, learned Commissioner raised doubt as to whether Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahapravu Bije, Old Berhampur and Sri Nrusingha Swami Bije, Puruna Berhampur, Patarasahi are one and the same Deity or not. However, the trustee being

aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments refusing permission to alienate the deity's immovable property preferred an Appeal under Section 19(4) of the Act.

5. The State Government relying upon the report of the concerned Inspector of Endowments as well as report of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur holding that Sri Laxmi Nursingh Mahaprabhu and Sri Nrusingha Swami are one and the same Deity granted permission to alienate the immovable property of the Deity vide order under Annexure-2. The said order is assailed in this writ petition.

6. Mr. Mantry, learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that mandatory procedure under Rule 4(2) of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Rules, 1959 (for brevity 'the Rules') was not followed while alienating the property of the Deity. Hence, the auction notice as well as the sale deed executed pursuant to the said order is vitiated and are liable to be struck down and sale deed is invalid and confers no right, title and interest on the purchaser. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order under Annexure 2 and sale deed under annexure 5.

7. Ms. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Trustee-Opposite Party No.3 relying upon the order passed in O.A. No.4 of 1993 filed under Section 41 of the Act submitted that Iswar Das was recognised as the hereditary trustee of Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahapravu Bije, Old Berhampur, Khaspa

Street. She also drew attention to Letter No.1260/666 G(M) dated 27.09.2018, wherein the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur stated that Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahapravu and Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Swami, Khaspa Street, Berhampur are one and same Deity.

8. In view of the aforesaid controversy, this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 directed learned Commissioner of Endowments to make an enquiry with records available and report as to whether Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahapravu Bije and Nrusingha Swami of puruna Berhampur are one and the same Deity or not and submit a report to that effect. Accordingly, learned Commissioner of Endowment submitted a report vide letter no.9553 dated 14.10.2025 stating that Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Pahapravu, Khaspa Street, Berhampur and Sri Nrusingha Swami, Puruna Berhampur are one and the same religious institution.

9. In view of such report, Mr. Mantry, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that since Rule 4(2) of the Rules are not followed the auction notice and alienation pursuant to such auction notice are void and ab initio and the sale deed executed pursuant thereto also renders invalid and inoperative conferring no right, title and interest on the purchaser.

10. Ms. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.3, however, vehemently objects to the same and referring to the Counter Affidavit filed, submitted that the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(2) of the Rules have been meticulously followed and as such the sale deed in question is

valid and conferred, the right, title & interest on the purchaser.

She also relied upon the ratio in the case of K. Arjun Das Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa & others, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 355, in which it is held as under :-

"31. The plain reading of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court shows that it has committed a manifest error in not appreciating the concurrent finding noticed by the Single Bench of the High Court and has proceeded on a tangent, brushing aside the factual foundation on a price of land offered by Respondents 4 and 5 who were merely interveners in the proceedings standing on the fence having no stakes on their shoulders, came forward just to nullify the registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant by adopting the indirect method in making a public offer. To the contrary, if there was any error in the decision-making process adopted by the respondents, the remedy available with the interveners Respondents 4 and 5 was to question the registered sale deed in the appropriate proceedings available under the law which certainly must have been appeared to be more cumbersome and the easy walkover was to attack the procedure adopted by the competent authority by making a stray offer with no liability to discharge, such a procedure cannot be countenanced to nullify the registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant after due compliance and mandated by law under the 1951 Act".

(emphasis supplied)

11. It is thus submitted that the Petitioners essentially assail the sale deed under Annexure-5, which is not available to be challenged in a writ jurisdiction under article 226 and 227 of the constitution. If the Petitioners allege non-compliance of the mandatory procedure and in consequence, the validity of

the sale deed, the same can only be challenged in the common law forum as held in the aforesaid case law. She therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

12. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for learned Commissioner of Endowments and Mr. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned order under Annexure- 2 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition submitting that the same is hopelessly barred by limitation.

13. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned Counsel for the Parties, this Court finds that the writ petition has been filed challenging the order under Annexure- 2 and the sale deed on two grounds. Firstly; on the ground that Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahapravu and Sri Nrusingha Swami Bije of Puruna Berhampur are not the one and same Deity. Report of the Commissioner submitted along with letter dated 14.10.2025 makes it clear that both the institutions are one and the same. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the report of learned Commissioner is reproduced hereunder;

"From the management file it appears that one Puma Ch. Patro had submitted a representation on 7.1.22 before the Commissioner stating therein that Satyabadi Das, (petitioner Rahul Das fathers name is also Satyabadi Das) alienated lands to several persons including him on behalf of the deity Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahaprabhu. He sought for a clarification from the office of the Commissioner of Endowments when the revenue authority objected to mutate the land in his favour for the reason that the deity's name mentioned in the registered sale deed (Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mohaprabhu bije) executed by Satyabadi Das varies from the deity's actual name (Nrusingha Mohaprabhu bije) and the same necessitates

Commissioner of Endowments to instruct Divisional Inspector of Endowments, Berhampur to conduct an enquiry. The then Divisional inspector of endowments, Berhampur conducted an enquiry and submitted report dated 04.05.2022 stating therein that Sri Nrusingha Mahaprabhu Bije Puruna Berhampur (Old Berhampur) and Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mohaprabhu is one institution bearing Index No. 666- G.Further, there is only one management file maintained in the office of the Commissioner of Endowments in the name of Sri Laxmi Nrusingha.On referring to the Index Register it appears that Sri Laxmi Nrusingha at (Old Berhampur), Berhampur is an Indexed institution and assigned No 45-LG/ 666G/A. It may not be out of context to note here that some of parties purposefully submitting name of the institution with little variance than the actual name only to confuse the revenue authorities to get a favourable order. There is no other institution named Sri Nrusingha Swami at Old town (Puruna Berhampur).

Therefore, Sri Laxmi Nrusingha Mahaprabhu, Puruna Berhampur (Khaspa Street) and Sri Nrusingha Swami of Puruna Berhampur may be treated as one and the same institution."

The said report is not challenged and attained its finality. Thus, a only question remains as to whether Rule 4 (2) of the Rules have been followed and for that the sale deed executed pursuant to the auction notice is valid or not.

14. In view of the ratio in the case of A. Arjun Das (supra), the contention raised by Mr. Mantry, learned Counsel for the Petitioners is no more res-integra.

15. It has already been held that if the aggrieved party challenges the procedure as well as the sale deed, the only remedy available to him is by taking shelter in the appropriate proceeding.

16. In addition to the above, the writ petition has been filed six years after the impugned order under Annexure-2 was

passed and that too after execution of the sale deed. The Petitioners are the fence sitter to the entire proceeding and at a belated stage approached this Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under Annexure-2 or the sale deed under Annexure-5 executed pursuant to order under Annexure-2.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

18. It is, however, observed that dismissal of the writ petition shall not stand on the way of the Petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

(S.K. Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated, the 16th January, 2026/Banita

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jan-2026 11:20:36