KANTEISUNI THAKURANI BIJE RAMPUR KAITHA Vs. BABUDHAR ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in F. A. No. 33 of 1988 affirming the judgment dated 30-11-1988 passed by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack Zone, Cuttack in O. A No. 18 of 1987 by which he has allowed the petition under Section 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

(2.) A petition under Section 41 of the Act was filed on behalf of Kanteisuni Thakurani Bije Rampur Kaitha and respondent 1 to 4 praying for a declaration that the deity Sri Sri Kanteisuni Thakurani (hereinafter referred to as 'the deity') is a temple without any hereditary trustee and the disputed land is public religious endowment. Their case is that the deity was installed by the villagers of Rampur Kaitha about 300 years ago and since then the villagers have been worshipping the deity as their Gramadebati and its affairs are managed by the villagers. With the passage of time, the deity came to own about 7 acres of land (in short, the disputed land) and its usufructs are used for the daily seba puja of the deity. Prabodh Chandra Dhir Birabar Harichandan Mahapatra (who was arrayed as opposite party No. 3 and was appellant No. 2 in this appeal and after his death being represented by his legal representatives) was the zamindar of the locality and his name was formally recorded as marfatdar of the deity although he never took any part in the management of the affairs of the deity at any point of time. The villagers of Rampur Kaitha as well as people belonging to the neighbouring villagers take part in the Janijatra of the deity and have been offering bhog to the deity as of right since the time of its foundation. The deity is a public one. Original appellant No. 2 having no manner of right, title and interest over the institution or in respect of the disputed land illegally alienated the property of the deity including the Bijesthali in favour of the present appellants 3 to 28 by means of registered sale deed. On the aforesaid allegations, it was prayed for a declaration that the deity is a public religious institution (temple) without any hereditary trustee, was made.

(3.) The contesting appellants filed written statement denying the averments made in the petition under Section 41 of the Act. Their case is that the disputed land is the ancestral property of the original appellant No. 2. The deity was installed by his father about 50 years back and since then the same is being treated as his private family deity for all practical purposes. The villagers had no role at all at any time in the management of the deity nor have they any right of Darshan or offering puja. Father of original appellant No. 2 and after his death the original appellant No. 2 managed the affairs of the deity. During 1987 he transferred his marfatdari rights over the institution in favour of appellants 3 to 28. The deity is a private one and the disputed land is the private property of the deity.