ARUN PANDA Vs. BANSHIDHAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEITY Sri Sri Jaleswar Mahadev Bije, Kalarahanga under Mancheswar Police Station in the district of Khurda is an ancient religious institution existing for more than two to three hundred years, as stated by both the parties.

(2.) IT appears from Annexure -A/1 to the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. parties 1 to 5 that the Government of Orissa in its Sports, Culture and Youth Services Department issued a notification exercising its power under sub -section (1) of section 3 of the Orissa Ancient Monuments Reservation Act, 1956 declaring the deity in question as a protected monument within the meaning of thesaid Act and thereby it has been so declared. It has been stated in the said notification under Annexure -A/1 that one Anirudha Panda and others were the Marfatdars and were acting under the Managing Trustee. O.A. No. 8 of 1994 was filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar on behalf of the villagers represented by the opp. party no. 1 Banshidhar Mishra for declaring that the deity is a public deity without any hereditary trustee. The present petitioners and their ancestors along with others numbering 34 in toto were the opp. parties in the said O.A., which was filed under section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (for short, 'the Act'). The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, after recording evidence from both the sides, both oral and documentary and after hearing the matter, passed the final order in the said O.A. No. 8 of 1994 on 13.10.2005. A copy of the said order has been produced before me. From the same, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments elaborately discussing the evidence adduced before him, held that the opp. parties 1 to 24 (except 1/a) in the said proceeding are Sewaks in defacto management of the deity. But they have failed to prove that they are hereditary trustees or Sevayats of the deity and, accordingly, negatived the contention of the said opp. parties, out of whom, some are petitioners in this writ petition. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments ultimately disposed of the said O.A. No. 8 of 1994 with the following order: -

(3.) THE petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments under section 44 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments registered as F.A. No. 16 of 2005. The said appeal has been dismissed for default and the petitioners have filed Misc. Case No. 1 of 2011 for restoration of the appeal, which is stated to be pending.