BENUDHAR HOTA Vs. JAGANNATH NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 44 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short O.H.R.E. Act). The Judgment dated 5th June 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments in F.A. No. 5/1994 is assailed in this appeal. On the basis of a petition filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 41 of the O.H.R.E. Act. praying for a declaration that the institution of Deity Sri Jagannath, Balabhadra and Subhadra Bije at village Kulba is a private Deity and the properties described in the schedule of the petition were private endowment of Respondent No. 1, O.A. No. 16/1980 was registered in the Court of Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Sambalpur.

(2.) IN the petition it is averred that Sanandram Naik, the father of Respondent No. 1 migrated to village Kulba from Bilaigarh situated in the district of Sundargarh ages back. At the relevant time no temple or Hindu Religious Institution existed in village Kulba which had population of tribals mostly. Sanandram Naik installed the case Deity in a portion of his house and appointed a Pujari to perform the Seva Puja of the deity and latter on a 'Mandap' was constructed for performing Kirtan and other religious functions. It is further alleged that he had set apart some lands more fully described in Schedule 'B' of the petition for Seva Puja of the Deity. According to Respondent No. 1 his father was managing the affairs of the deity and after his death Respondent No. 1 was managing the same. In the year 1972 a pucca temple was constructed out of his own funds on a piece of land on which he purchased. He had appointed one Gokulananda Hota as Pujari, but then the said Gokulananda surreptitiously got his name recorded in respect of the lands during settlement operation. Thereafter he was removed and one Daya Das was appointed as Pujari. It is alleged that on being instigated by the son of Gokulananda Hota, the villagers, claimed the institution to be a public religious endowment and tried to disturb in the Nitikantis of the Deity. Consequently, he was constrained to file a petition Under Section 41 of the O.H.R.E. Act for declaration that the institution was his private institution and for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the Addl. Asst. Commissioner framed five issues. In order to substantiate the case Respondent No. 1 got examined eight witnesses & exhibited 4 documents. On behalf of the villagers eight witnesses were also examined & eight documents were exhibited. After discussing the evidence in extenso the Addl. Asst. Commissioner held that the institution not a private institution but wets a public religious institution & that the properties described in the Schedules 'A' & 'B' of the petition were religious endowments & Respondent No. 1 was its hereditary trustee.