GAGANBIHARI MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Bhuyan, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, the land belongs to his clients. It is not land of the deity. In the circumstances, inter alia, letter dtd. 16/2/2023 written by the Additional Assistant Commissioner to the Tahsildar amounts to interference with his clients' interest in the land. In any event, Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 does not empower the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to exercise power to make interim order in respect of deity's land, for the purpose assuming though not admitting that the land belongs to the deity.

(2.) Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and submits, Sec. 8 provides for powers of the Deputy and Assistant Commissioners. She submits further, the land was recorded in name of the deity in the sabik khata. Petitioners had got made settlement in their names. Such record is at best a rebuttable presumption. All that the Additional Assistant Commissioner did was to seek assistance of the administration, where petitioners are engaged in changing nature and character of the land belonging to the deity.

(3.) Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.