MADHUSUDAN MOHAPATRA Vs. BRUNDABAN PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, lands made subject matter of OA no.11 of 2022, filed in the Court of Commissioner of Endowments under Sec. 25 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, do not belong to a public religious institution. The lands belong to a private deity. His client has interest in them and has been wrongfully restrained by order of status-quo, obtained by private opposite parties. Hence, impugned are orders dtd. 2/7/2021 of initial order of status-quo passed by the Commissioner, followed by order dtd. 24/8/2022, rejecting the recall application. He submits further, it will appear on face of second impugned order that the Commissioner found on facts that the lands, made subject matter of the OA case, belongs to private deity, yet maintained the status-quo order.

(2.) Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner. We have not yet made direction for issuance of notice on private opposite parties, who are petitioners in the OA case.

(3.) Perused impugned orders and particularly order dtd. 24/8/2022. It is true that the Commissioner found on facts, reference to lands being subject matter of the OA belonging to a public religious institution as in order dtd. 2/7/2021, was not correct. However, the order of status-quo was maintained. A passage from said impugned order is extracted and reproduced below.