Petitioner challenged an order rejecting his claim for land allotment as remuneration for deity service. The Court found the impugned order legal and dismissed the writ petition.
Petitioner's prayer for direction to allot 3 acres of land was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6204 of 2024
Niranjan Dash
..... Petitioners
Represented By Adv. Mr.A.M. Das
-versus-
1. The Collector, Khurda; ….. Opp. Parties 2. The Commissioner of Represented By Endowments; and Mr.G.N.Rout, ASC for O.P.1 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Ms.P.Naidu, Endowments Adv. For O.Ps.2 & 3
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.DASH AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER
06.05.2024
Order No.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner, by filing this writ Petition, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in seeking a direction to the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) to allot 3 acres of land in favour of the Petitioner, which he has received as the remuneration for the service, by quashing Annexrue-3.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.G.N.Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and Ms.P.Naidu, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.
Page 1 of 2.
4. Keeping in view the submissions made, the impugned order under Annexure-5 passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.2) being gone through, it is seen that the Petitioner, being the successor of Pankaj Charan Das, has been held entitled to enjoy the Deity’s land in lieu of rendering Seva Puja to the Deity. Having said so, the learned Commissioner of Endowments, (Opposite Party No.2) held to have no legal authority to provide any land to the Petitioner for the purpose as he has claimed. Accordingly, the prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected. We find absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the said order. The Petitioner, being in enjoyment of the property belonging to the Deity in lieu of the service that he is rendering, there cannot be any direction for allotment of some land from out of it in his favour clothing him with absolute right, title and interest over the property so as to deal the same in any manner he likes.
5. The writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(D.DASH) Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Basu Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 08-May-2024 16:47:34
(V. NARASINGH) Judge
Page 2 of 2.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner of Endowments was legally authorized to allot deity land to the petitioner as remuneration for service.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Niranjan Dash
The Collector, Khurda
The Commissioner of Represented By Endowments
The Asst. Commissioner of
D. Dash
V. Narasingh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
