NARAYANA PADHI Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICERUTTARPARSWA MUTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest and certain others were transferees of endowment property belonging to the Uttar-parswa Muth at Puri. Its Executive Officer initiated a proceeding under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 against the alienees. That proceeding ultimately terminated in the hands of the Commissioner of Endowments against the alienations. Some of the alienees carried a writ application to this Court, being O. J. C. No. 124 of 1970. This Court by order dated 27th April. 1972 quashed the order of the Commissioner as a result of which the proceeding under Section 25 of the Act revived. The petitioner's father died during the pendency of the proceeding but there was no substitution. Without bringing the petitioner on record, under orders covered by Annexures 2 and 3 the proceeding was again disposed of against the dead man and the alienation was vacated so far as original opposite party No. 10 is concerned. The petitioner as heir of opposite party No. 10 in the original proceeding has appllied to this Court for quashing of Annexures 2 and 3 so far as the interest of opposite party No. 16 which was inherited by the petitioner is concerned.

(2.) The Executive Officer has taken the stand that the writ application had been filed by some of the alienees. Opposite party No. 10 had not joined. Therefore, even if this Court had quashed the order of the Commissioner under Section 25 of the Act no benefit is available to the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest. So far as opposite party No. 10 is concerned, the order of the Commissioner remained and no grievance ran, therefore, be made at this stage against the final order on the ground that there was no substitution and the petitioner had not been brought on record and afforded an opportunity of being heard before the final order was made. In support of this proposition reliance is placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Cumbum Roadways (P.) Ltd., Madurai v. Somu Transport Ltd. (AIR 1966 SC 1366).

(3.) It may not be irrelevant to mention here that during the pendency of the earlier writ application before this Court, aggrieved by the order of eviction under Section 25 of the Act, the petitioner's father had filed a suit and had lost. While the appeal was pending, the decision of this Court in the earlier writ application came. He, therefore, moved the appellate court for leave to withdraw the appeal as also the suit. Annexure 8 shows that such leave had been granted. Therefore, the decision of the Civil Court is no more there standing in the way of the petitioner in the matter of claiming relief.