Dismissed

Parsuram Sutar v. Commnr of Endowments, Bbsr, Khurda

Orissa HC1 May 2024WP(C)/10237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Marfatdar sought quashing of a Commissioner of Endowments order directing a deity's compensation amount to be kept in fixed deposit with interest withdrawn for Sebapuja. The High Court found the prayer misconceived given prior orders and proceedings, dismissed the writ petition, and left him free to approach the Commissioner regarding the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the Commissioner of Endowments regarding the fixed-deposit compensation amount.

Parsuram Sutar Vs Commnr of Endowments, Bbsr, Khurda — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10237 of 2024

¶2

Parsuram Sutar

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Bhabani Samal

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Commissioner Of Endowments,

¶7

.....

¶8

Opposite Parties

¶9

BBSR, Khurda

¶10

Represented By Adv.

¶11

Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH

¶14

AND

¶15

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

01.05.2024

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

¶20

The Petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in impeaching an order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments in OA No.71 of 2013 under Annexure-1 with the prayer to quash/ set aside the same in further praying for a direction to the Opposite Party to disburse the amount in favour of the Petitioner as the Marfatdar of the Deity.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Commissioner, when we perused the

¶22

Page 1 of 3 .

¶23

order dated 03.08.2017 which was passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments pursuant to the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17863 of 2014, it is seen that the learned Commissioner by that order had given necessary direction as to the deposit of the compensation amount received for the acquisition of the land belonging to the Deity in Fixed Deposit Scheme in any Nationalized Bank, further authorizing the Petitioner (Marfatdar) to withdraw the interest that would accrue upon the said deposit for being utilized for Sebapuja and for other benefit of the Deity. It then reveals that the Petitioner pursuant to that order had moved the concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer for complying the order of the learned Commissioner. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in response to the said move of the Petitioner intimated that the compensation amount has been given to the Inspector of Endowment, Kendrapara under two cheques.

¶24

The Petitioner thereafter instead of moving the learned Commissioner for dealing with the money in terms of earlier order dated 03.08.2017, appears to have filed another application under section 19-A of the OHRE Act on 06.02.2020, for total disbursement of the compensation amount in his favour for construction of a new building. On receiving the said application, as per the order of the Commissioner, the Petitioner was asked to furnish necessary plan and estimate for the proposed construction with the record of right of the land in question. That having not been complied by the Petitioner, he has moved the Commissioner for recall of earlier order dated

¶25

Page 2 of 3 .

¶26

03.08.2017 passed in OA No.71 of 2013 which by then had attained finality.

¶27

Learned Commissioner of Endowments when has dismissed the said application refusing to recall the earlier orders, the Petitioner had again carried a writ petition before this Court, which has been disposed of with the observation that there stands no provision under the OHRE Act empowering the learned Commissioner to recall its order.

¶28

In view of all these developments, we find that the prayer made by the Petitioner for quashing the order dated 03.08.2017 passed in OA No.71 of 2013 is misconceived.

¶29

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it would be open for the Petitioner to approach the learned Commissioner of Endowments to move by filing an application for dealing with the compensation amount, which is lying in fixed deposit in terms of the order dated 03.08.2017 passed in OA No.71 of 2013.

¶30

(D. Dash) Judge

(V. Narasingh)

Judge

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-May-2024 19:15:06

¶36

Page 3 of 3 .

Parsuram Sutar v. Commnr of Endowments, Bbsr, Khurda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parsuram Sutar v. Commnr of Endowments, Bbsr, Khurda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukanti Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ratikanta Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha

Rohit Kumar Santuka Vs Authorise Officer, Bank of Baroda, Cuttack

Sakuntala Paraja Vs Registraradministration,High Court of Orissa

Sri Sri Bauli Math, Puri Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Sahoo Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack