Lingaraj Sarangi Vs State of Odisha

Judgment dated 30^th September, 2024 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 234 of 2021 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶20

Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Plot No. 1797/5943, Chaka No.109/1492 under Khata No.839 to an extent of Ac.0.050 decimals situated in mouza- Nariso, under Balipatna Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity ‘the case

¶21

Page 1 of 5

¶22

land’) stands recorded in the name of the private deity, Shree Radhagobinda Thakur. The idol of the private deity is being worshipped in the residential house of the Petitioners. The case land does not yield any income for the deity. A separate Pujagruha was intended to be constructed by the Petitioner No.1 who is in Management of the deity. Hence, the Petitioners filed an application under Section 19-A of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for brevity ‘the Act’) to get ‘No Objection Certificate’ to alienate the case land to meet the expenses incurred for daily niti kanti of the deity and for construction of the Pujagruha out of the consideration amount. Although, the Inspector of Endowments, Bhubaneswar submitted his report on 17^th August, 2022 (Annexture-4), but did not mention about the necessity for alienation of the case land in his report. Learned Commissioner also did not make any endeavour to find out whether the case land is required to be alienated for the benefit of the deity. Learned Commissioner merely holding that “ It is not known how the financial condition of the deity will be improved with the consideration amount by alienating a small piece of land measuring only five decimals (Ac.0.05 dec.). Kissam (Type) of the case land is unknown. P.W.1 has not stated in his evidence that the land over which the deity’s bijeshali of situates. The aforementioned facts are highly essential for a just decision of an application under Section 19-A OHRE Act, which unfortunately are missing from the evidence PW.1. ” Accordingly, learned Commissioner by its judgment under Annexure-6 dismissed the application under Section 19-A of the Act.

¶23

It is further submitted that the Petitioners have clearly stated that the land in question does not yield any income for the deity as

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

it is water logged during rainy season. Further, to bear the expenses of daily niti kanti and sebapuja of the deity and to construct a separate Puja room, the case land is required to be alienated. Admittedly, the Petitioner No.1 is a retired government servant and does not have sufficient funds to meet expenses of daily niti kanti and for construction of separate Puja room for the private deity. No endeavour was made by learned Commissioner to make any enquiry in that regard. Hence, the impugned judgment under Annexure-6 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

¶26

Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments on the other hand submits that the Petitioners did not give any particulars with regard to the funds required to meet the daily niti kanti of the deity and for construction of the Puja room. Although, the report of the Inspector of Endowments does not disclose the necessity of alienation of deity’s property, but the evidence on record adduced by the Petitioner No.1 is grossly insufficient to consider an application under Section 19-A of the Act. Thus, learned Commissioner has therefore not committed any error in dismissing the application under Section 19-A of the Act. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶27

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that upon receipt of an application under Section 19-A of the Act, learned Commissioner directed the Inspector of Endowments, Bhubaneswar to make an enquiry and submit a report with regard to necessity for alienation of the land of the private deity. The Inspector of Endowments, Bhubaneswar submitted his Report No.120/ Judicial E.C. dated 17^th August, 2022 (Annexure-4). Perusal of the report does not reveal that the Inspector of Endowments had

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

made any endeavour to find out the necessity of alienation of the property in question.

¶30

It is the case of the Petitioner No.1 that he is a retired government servant and does not have sufficient fund to meet the expenses of daily niti kanti and also for construction of separate Puja room for the deity. In course of argument, Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that in a similar circumstance, learned Commissioner had allowed an application filed by the present Petitioners under Section 19-A of the Act in O.A. No. 235 of 2021 (Annexure-8), but refused the relief in the instant application.

¶31

On perusal of the impugned judgment under Annexure-6, this Court finds that learned Commissioner of Endowments has not made any endeavour to ascertain whether alienation of the property in question is required to meet the expenses of daily niti kanti of the deity and also to construct a new Puja room for the deity. Since the report of the Inspector of Endowments is silent about such requirement, learned Commissioner could have directed him (the Inspector of Endowments) to conduct further enquiry and to submit detailed report. Of course, the Petitioners have not given details of the expenses of daily niti kanti of the deity and fund required for construction of the separate Puja room. But, it is submitted that in similar circumstance, learned Commissioner had allowed an application under Section 19-A in O.A. No. 235 of 2021.

¶32

In that view of the matter, this Court feels that the Petition under Section 19-A of the Act requires fresh consideration. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-6 is set aside and the matter is remitted to learned Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar to adjudicate O.A. No.234 of 2021 filed under Section 19-A of the

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

Act afresh, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The Petitioners, if so advised, may adduce further evidence in support of their case. Learned Commissioner, if feels necessary, may also direct the Inspector of Endowments, Bhubaneswar to conduct further enquiry and submit a detailed report.

¶35

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of the Petitioners in the application under Section 19-A of the Act.

¶36

The Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶37

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶38

application.

¶39

(K.R. Mohapatra)

¶40

Judge

¶41

(Savitri Ratho)

¶42

Judge

¶43

Sukanta

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 13-Oct-2025 18:53:50

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Lingaraj Sarangi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lingaraj Sarangi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brundaban Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Sankar Chandra Biswas Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Chandra Rana Vs State of Odisha

The Utkal University Vs the Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal

Kanhu Charan Sahoo Vs the Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal Bbsr

Bhagirathi Sahoo Vs Lao Cum Competent Authority, Keonjhar