MURALIDHARA DUTTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, agricultural land, which his clients want to sell, stands recorded in the RoR in name of the deity as "Nijagruha". His clients applied for issuance of "No Objection Certificate" under sec. 19-A of Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. The Commissioner by impugned judgment dtd. 11/11/2022 said that since petitioner no.1 stands recorded as "Sebayat" in respect of the deity, he is only caretaker of the property. He has no right to alienate property belonging to the deity unless it is shown that in fact he had acquired the property in name of the deity. Such evidence is lacking. Furthermore, from report of Inspector of Endowments it appeared, inter alia that prior to date of inspection, the deity was being worshipped at a pucca temple in the village and public were getting chance for free darshan. He submits, entry in the RoR is sufficient for prima facie appreciation that it is a private deity. He seeks interference.

(2.) Ms. Niadu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner. On query from Court, she draws attention to rule-4-A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959. She submits, sub-rule (3) provides for prima facie satisfaction. On further query from Court, she submits no objections were received.

(3.) Sub-rule(3) in rule 4A is reproduced below.