TAMALA DAS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client wants to deal with property purchased by her under a registered conveyance dtd. 12/8/1992. As such, she applied for no objection under sec. 19-A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. He draws attention to inserted by amendment rule 4A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959. He submits, in spite of not receiving any objection, the Commissioner passed impugned judgment dtd. 20/7/2018 rejecting his client's petition.

(2.) Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and points out from paragraph-6 of impugned judgment that her client found case schedule land is recorded in name of deity Sri Dadhibaban Dev, bije Nijagaon, indicating public deity. In the circumstances, inquiry report was disbelieved and the judgment duly made. She submits further, sec. 19-A was inserted by amendment in year 1989 and applied thereafter.

(3.) Mr. Dash in reply relies on view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sumit vs. State, reported in 2012 (I) OLR 922. He submits, rule 4A was inserted by amendment, pursuant to this view in year 2012.