MAYADHAR BEHERA Vs. LORD LINGARAJ MAHAPRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.1.2002 of the 1st Adhoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar confirming the order dated 28.6.2001 of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 190 of 2001 dismissing the prayer, of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction restraining the opp. parties from eviction.

(2.) THE brief fact of the petitioner's case is that the suit land was Anabadi land of which Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Bije at Bhubaneswar was the ex intermediary. The ex -intermediary interest vested with the State Government since 18,3.1974, but prior to such vesting of intermediary estate, in the year 1964, the opp. party had inducted Kulamani Behera as a tenant. Said Kulamani possessed the suit land by paying rent to the deity and the Deity had granted ownership certificate in favour of him. After the death of Kulamani, his son, who is the present petitioner, is the owner in possession of the suit land and is possessing the same without any interference from any quarter. The petitioner has constructed a house over the suit land, where he is carrying on his business. However, the suit land has been erroneously recorded in favour of the opp. party during the Hal Settlement but there is a note of possession in favour of the petitioner. Taking advantage of the R.O.R., the opp. parties initiated a proceeding under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act before the Commissioner of Endowments, but the Commissioner, without affording opportunity of hearing, passed an order of eviction which is allegedly illegal. On receipt of such order of the Commissioner, the Collector, Khurda, has initiated Misc. Case No. 35 of 1996 and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause, as to why he shall not be evicted from the suit land and the petitioner has filed his show cause claiming his right, title and interest over the suit land in the aforesaid premises. On enquiry, it was found that the opp. party has got the land illegally recorded in his favour in Vesting Case No. 27 of 1983, which is illegal being against the tenancy right of the petitioner, It was claimed that the opposite party was never in Khas possession of the suit land and accordingly, the order obtained in Vesting Case No. 27 of 1983 is illegal. On being aware of the order of the Collector directing the Tahasildar for eviction, the petitioner filed the original suit for declaration and for permanent injunction along with the Misc. Case for temporary injunction.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in his impugned order found the following undisputed fact :