AKSHAYA KUMAR BEHERA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is judgment dtd. 11/7/2023 made by the Commissioner in allowing the application under Sec. 25 in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 against his client and directing the Collector to issue requisition for taking necessary steps to recover possession. He demonstrates from the judgment that the Commissioner purported to rely upon his client's admission of being in occupation of the deity's land upon payment of rent till year 2020. He submits, for purpose of adjudication under Sec. 25, it could not be said his client was in unauthorized occupation merely because he was defaulter. His entry into the land was under authority.

(2.) Without prejudice he submits, the Tahsildar issued notice of eviction dtd. 1/9/2023. This is not permissible, as it is only the Collector who is authorized to issue the requisition under Sec. 25.

(3.) Mr. Nath, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and submits, petitioner did not take the box in the proceeding let alone disclosing any document to show his claim of authorized occupation. Impugned judgment is based on relevant evidence including lack of it on side of petitioner. In the circumstances, there should not be interference. On query from Court regarding whether Sec. 25 allowed for delegation of power by the Collector to the Tahsildar Mr. Nath submits, the requisition ought to have been issued by the Collector.