CHINTAMONI SUBUDHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commissioner, Orissa, passed under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, on 23 -11 -1958 according sanction to the lease of 95 cents of land appertaining to plot No. 153, of Khata No. 465 in village Biruda in favour of opposite parties 2 to 5. A petition filed subsequently by the Petitioner for review of that order was dismissed by the Commissioner on 11 -2 -1959. Against the aforesaid order under Section 19(1) of the Act the Petitioner filed an appeal to the Government as permitted by Sub -section (4) of Section 19. Government by their order dated 28 -5 -1959 -Vide Law Department notification No. 3654 of that date dismissed that appeal.

(2.) THE material facts are these. In village Birudi there is a small plot of 95 cents bearing plot No. 1536, appertaining to Khata No. 465, recorded in the name of the deity known as Dhawaleswar Mahadev. It was lying fallow for some time. On 23 -11 -1957 opposite parties 2 to 5 applied to the Endowments Commissioner, Orissa, for authorizing the said plot of land to be leased out to them for the purpose of constructing a house thereon on payment of reasonable rent and salami. The Endowments Commissioner registered that application as O.A. 282 of 1957 -58 and sent notice through the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Nayagarh, inviting objections to the settlement of the plot with the said opposite parties and also caned upon the Endowment Inspector and the Managing Trustee to submit their reports as to whether the lease was necessary and beneficial to the deity. The report of the Managing Trustee is filed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit of the Endowments Commissioner though its genuineness is challenged by Mr. M. Mohanty on behalf of the Petitioner. There is however no affidavit saying that it is a forged report and I see no reason to doubt its genuineness. From that report it appears that long before their application to the Endowments Commissioner the trustees had given out in the locality that they had decided to lease out the land as it was lying fallow, but opposite parties 2 to 5 instead of approaching the trustees for giving the lease in their favour, or requesting them to approach the Commissioner to accord sanction for lease in their favour, directly applied to the Commissioner for the purpose. The managing trustee recommended the lease in favour of the applicants. The report of the Inspector of Endowments also shows that he hold a local enquiry in the presence of the trustees and the parties and he also recommended the lease in favour of the applicants as that would be beneficial to the deity inasmuch as some rent could be realised from a piece of land that had otherwise been lying fallow. On receipt of these reports the Endowments Commissioner made some sort of enquiry at Nayagarh during the course of which one Maguni (who was one of the trustees) was also examined. Then he passed the impugned order, purporting to be one under Section 19(1) of the Endowments Act, sanctioning the lease in favour of the opposite parties. The Petitioner thereupon filed a review application stating that they were willing to pay a higher rental and a higher salami, but the Commissioner refused to review his order.

(3.) THE rules of natural justice were also followed in this case. A report was called for from the managing trustees and also from the Inspector of Endowments who made a local enquiry in the presence of the trustees and the parties. The Commissioner also heard one of the trustees while camping at Nayagarh and passed a reasoned order which was upheld on appeal by the State Government. Under these circumstances we see no reason for interfering with his order in this application.