DANARDAN MOHAPATRA Vs. PITAMBAR JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 44 (2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (in short 'the Act') against the judgment and order dated 29.03.2007 passed by theDeputy Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in F.A.

(2.) The appellants 1 to 3 and the mother of the appellant No. 4(a) filed an application under Section 41 of the Act to declare the temple of Shree Shree Bireswar Mahadev Bije Jhintipal, P.S.- Chhendipada in the district of Angul as their private deity and in the alternative for a declaration to the effect that they are the hereditary trustees of the said deity. It was the case of the appellants that their paternal ancestors installed the deity at Jhintipal. To meet the expenditure towards the management and seva puja of the deity, the fore-fathers of the appellants settled about Ac.1.18 decimals of land as described in Schedule 'A' of the application under Section 41 of the Act, in favour of the deity. Since the time of installation, they, from generation to generation, have been performing seva puja of the suit deity and managing its affairs, which includes appropriation of the usufructs of the landed properties recorded in the name of the deity and managing the periodical festivals, such as, Shivaratri etc.

(3.) The respondents before the learned Additional Assistant Commissioner filed their written statements in the proceeding under Section 41 stating that Shree Bireswar Mahadev was existing since time immemorial in different forms of idol in the Western side of village Jhintipal under a temporary thatched house and later on, one late Bharat Behera donated some lands to the deity and the deity was kept in a thatched house constructed by the villagers of Jhintipal along with the neighbouring villagers and he continued to perform the seva puja of the deity. Since there was no suitable Pujak at that point of time, the villagers brought Ananta Mohapatra from village Nadhara of Dhenkanal and appointed him as Pujak of the deity on cash remuneration basis. When later on, the suit land was donated by the devotees, the said Ananta Mohapatra was asked to cultivate the land and to appropriate usufructs of the land for daily bhog of the deity and to take the rest towards his remuneration. The management of the temple was all along in the hands of the village committee from the time of its establishment and the applicants had no right in management except performing seva puja under the village committee. Late Ananta Mohapatra, taking advantage of the simplicity and ignorance of the villagers, got the land recorded in the name of the deity under his Marfatdarship. After the death of Ananta Mohapatra, his son Baidyanath Mohapatra followed the same practice. Baidyanath had no son, but five daughters, who were residing at different places with their husbands. In the meantime, the widow of Baidyanath Mohapatra got the suit land recorded in her name and brought the appellant No.1 Danardan Mohapatara to her house as an illatom son-in-law to perform the seva puja of the deity without any sanction of the village committee. The villagers approached the Endowment authority, upon which the interim trust board was formed from time to time. The rights of the applicants/appellants were denied by the respondents. The learned Additional Assistant Commissioner, on the above pleadings, framed issues and upon recording the evidence from the side of both parties, in his judgment dated 07.03.2002, came to the following conclusion:-