AMRUTALINI DAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dtd. 7/1/2023 made by the Commissioner directing his client's eviction by authorizing the Inspector of Endowments to enter into the premises and take all necessary steps for vacating two rooms under his client's occupation, with police help if required. He submits, his client had earlier filed civil suit and obtained status quo order. Yet, impugned order was made. He submits further, sec. 25 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 directs summary enquiry. Such was not made, inasmuch as no notice was given to his client.

(2.) Miss. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and submits, opportunity of hearing was given. However, she prays for adjournment to obtain instructions.

(3.) Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.3 and submits, his client is interested in executing impugned order. Suit filed by petitioner is in respect of different premises. No interference is warranted.