MANGALA THAKURANI BIJE, KAKATPUR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claimed to be the erstwhile Marfatdars of the Deity, Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatpur in the district of Puri. The said institution has been declared to be a Public Religious Endowment under the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1972, hereinafter to be called as "OHRE Act". In consonance with the provisions of the said Act, a Committee of Management was constituted to manage the institution and its properties. Admittedly, the petitioners do not claim to be the members of the Managing Committee, but according to them before the institution was declared as a public religious endowment, their ancestors were acting as the Marfatdars of the Deity. The controversy in this writ petition is with regard to settlement of the lands made by the O.E.A. Collector, Kakatpur in Bebandobasta (O.E.A.) Case No.1833 of 2001. By the said order, the disputed lands have been settled in favour of the Deity represented through its Trust Board. The disputed lands over which the petitioners put -forth their claim appertains to Plot No.2013 of Khata No.857, measuring an area of Ac.0.11 decimals situated in Mouza Kakatpur. The nomenclature of the said lands was 'Gharabari. According to the petitioners, their ancestors had purchased the land in the name of the Deity and were in possession thereof in lieu of performing "Seva Puja". They were also managing the affairs of the Deity, which was a private trust then. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that though the lands in question were purchased by their ancestors, who were Sevayat Marfatdars, after vesting of the estate under the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, the same had been wrongly settled in favour of the Deity. The ancestors of the petitioners their and after them, the petitioners, being the defacto owners of the lands, the same should have been settled in their favour and not in favour of the Deity, Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatpur.

(2.) MR . Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in course of hearing submitted, rather emphatically, that the lands having been purchased from out of the income of the ancestors of the petitioners, who were Marfatdars and were managing the affairs of the Deity, after vesting of the estate under the O.E.A. Act, the authorities should have settled the lands in favour of the petitioners. Further, Mr. Chatterji submitted that in consonance with the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, as no petition under Sections 6 and 7 having been filed by the Trust Board with a prayer to settle the lands, the authorities acted illegally in settling the same in favour of the Deity under the lease principle.

(3.) TO countenance the submissions made, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as the Deity was not in khas possession of the lands and the petitioners were possessing the lands as Marfatdars, the authorities acted illegally in settling the same in its favour. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dayanidhi Naik v. Mangala Thakurani of Kakatpur and another (M.A. No.180 of 1982 disposed of on 23.12.1983) and submitted that following the ratio of the said judgment, the lands should have been settled in favour of the petitioners, who were not only in possession of the lands but also were the Marfatdars of the Deity before it was declared to be a religious endowment.