PABITRA MOHAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the Opp. Parties to register the sale deed executed by Petitioner No. 2.

(2.) EARLIER on 4.5.1999, this Court in OJC No. 14347 of 1998 directed the Commissioner of Endowments to execute the sale deed in favour of the successful bidder (Susant Kumar Mishra) in case he deposited the full amount before this Court within the stipulated time (three months from the date of that order). In case of his failure to deposit the same, the arrangement should be finalized with the second highest bidder (Giridhari Pradhan, the Petitioner in that writ application). The transfer should be subject to final outcome of the civil disputes regarding possession and nature of the tenancy as claimed by said Giridhari Pradhan. The possession should be handed over after execution of the sale deed. The amount deposited before this Court should be kept until the question of ownership as claimed by Shri Jagannath Temple and Radhakanta Math was finally settled.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after the order was passed by this Court on 4.5.1999, said Susanta Kumar Mishra deposited the entire amount within the stipulated time as directed by this Court. He, in his turn, alienated part of the property in favour of the present Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Prativa Patfraik by registered sale deed Nos. 1235 dated 1.1.2000 and 4570 dated 10.12.1999 vide Annexures -2 and 3 respectively. Prativa Patnaik, in her turn, in order to sell the said land made an agreement with Petitioner No. 1. She also accepted the consideration amount and executed a Power -of -Attorney in favour of one Smt. Manisha Pradhan, the wife of Petitioner No. 1, to execute the sale deed and see the legal procedure in respect of her purchased property. Accordingly, the Petitioners approached the District Sub -Registrar, Puri for registration of the sale deed in favour of Petitioner No. 1, but the authority refused to register the same on the ground that the property belongs to Lord Jagannath. Hence, this writ application.