HADIBANDHU SENAPATI Vs. MANI BISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 44(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the judgment and order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments. Orissa, declaring lot No. 6 totalling 0.32 decimals of land (relating to khata No. 211, plot No. 963 Ac. 009 decimals and plot No. 970 Ac. 0.23 decimals) to be private property of respondent No. 1 is under challenge.

(2.) THE appellants filed an application under Section 41 of the Act for declaring the deity as a public deity and its lands as per schedule as public religious endowments. Their is that Shri Shri Sidheswar Mahaprabhu, popularly known as Sidha Mahapurusa installed at village Raipur is a public deity and its foundation is lost in antiquity. It is their case that from the beginning of the foundation of the deity, the management was being looked after by the village committee and some villagers had endowed lands in the name of the deity as per the schedule given in the petition Sebapuja of deity is being performed regularly and the expenditure for the performance of Sebapuja and daily Nitis of the deity is not from the usufructs of the land of the deity and the Marfatdars of the deity bear all the expenses. Alleging that respondent No. 1 surreptiously and with ill motive is trying to grab the properties of the deity, the application was made for necessary declaration. The real contestant to the said application was respondent No. 1 who claimed that lot No. 6 is his ancestral and private property. According to him the land under lot No. 6 was a piece of anabadi land of the zamindar who gave the same to his father who, in turn, converted it into cultivable land and came to possess and cultivate the same and he was giving share (dhulibhag) to the zamindar. In course of time his father kept the said lot in the name of the deity and got himself recorded as the Marfatdar. According to him after the death of his father, he came to possess the said land as successor. He claimed that the deity is a private deity and the lot in question is private land.

(3.) SHRI Brahmachari, learned counsel for the appellants, assails the finding of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments that lot No. 6 is private property of respondent No. 1. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner without going into the merits of the claim has decided the matter by taking irrelevant factors into consideration. Shri. Deo, on the other hand, submits that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal.