SASHIBHUSAN DAS Vs. LORD LINGARAJ MAHAPRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 18/3/2009 (Annexure-9) passed in O.A. No.125 of 1996 under Sec. 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the OHRE Act') by the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (OP No.2), the Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on the grounds inter alia that the impugned decision is bad in law for having treated his possession as unauthorized by applying the law which is prospective in nature.

(2.) The Petitioner contends that OP No.2 without considering the scope of the expression 'unauthorized occupation' as appearing in Sec. 25 of the OHRE Act which was introduced by the Act 2 of 1981 with effect from 2/3/1981 having prospective in operation held the possession as unlawful and directed eviction by exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 25 of the OHRE Act despite the fact that his vendor's vendor had obtained sanction in as per Sec. 19 thereof. It is further contended that the original tenant had the occupancy right and thereafter, the possession was continued till it reached in the hands of the Petitioner by way of a purchase and for the fact that the occupation has been continuous and that too, with the sanction of OP No.2, the eviction could not have been directed. In the alternative, according to the Petitioner assuming the possession to be unauthorized, such continuous and peaceful occupation vis-a-vis the schedule land has led to the acquisition of adverse title in respect thereof. Thus, as per the claim of the Petitioner, the impugned order under Annexure-9 is unsustainable and therefore, deserves to be quashed.

(3.) On the contrary, OP Nos.1 and 2 justified the decision and action of OP No.2 with regard to eviction of the Petitioner from the schedule land which was under his unauthorized possession. It is contended that the possession was still unauthorized by the time the Act 2 of 1981 came into force and therefore, OP No.2 committed no illegality directing eviction. It is also contended that the sanction which is claimed by the Petitioner to be in favour of the vendor's vendor was not in accordance with law then prevailing and otherwise also, it was not worked out inter se parties since no lease deed was executed as a result thereof.