The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.6659 of 2020 Sk.Naimul Hak …. Mr.A.K. Jena,, Advocate Petitioner -versus- Sri Satyabadi Gopinath Dev represented through Kailash Chandrra Mishra and others …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr.B.P.Mohanty, Advocate (for O.P.1) Ms.Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate (for O.P.2) Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC (for O.Ps.3 and 4) CORAM: JUSTICE B.P.ROUTRAY JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 11.04.2025 03. 1. Heard Mr.A.K.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.P.Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 (the deity), Ms.P.Naidu, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 (Commissioner of Endowment, Odisha) and Ms. S.Devi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for opposite parties No.3 and 4. 2. The writ petition has been filed assailing order dated 20.01.2020 of learned Commissioner of Endowment, Odisha, Page 1 of 6 Bhubaneswar passed in Misc. Case No.22 of 2019 (arising out of O.A.No.20 of 2016). 3. The background facts, as submitted by the petitioner, are that initially the land in question belonged to the deity, i.e. Sri Satyabadi Gopinath Dev, Bije Sakhigopal and a permission was granted by the Commissioner of Endowment under Section 19 of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act by order dated 31.12.1984 in O.A. No.157 of 1982 to sell the property in favour of one Salima Bibi. Accordingly, RSD dated 20.08.1985 was executed in favour of Salima Bibi who subsequently sold the said property in favour of the present petitioner, namely, Sk.Naimul Hak. Thereafter, he remained in peaceful possession of the same. However, the R.O.R. was published without bringing the name of the petitioner alone but recording the land in favour of the deity Marfat Sk. Naimul Hak despite the fact that he became the sole owner of the property in question according to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, discrepancy appeared in the R.O.R. uploaded in revenue website stating the name of the petitioner wrongly as Sk. Naisul Hak. 4. Thereafter, the temple trust in the year 2016 moved the Endowment Commissioner under Section 25 of the O.H.R.E. Act, Page 2 of 6 praying for eviction of the petitioner and in the said proceeding, i.e., O.A.No.20 of 2016, an order was passed on 20.06.2018 directing for eviction of the petitioner and restoring the property to the deity. The petitioner came to know about the same subsequently in the year 2019 and accordingly he filed Misc. Case No.22 of 2019 praying to set aside said ex parte order in terms of the provision under Order-IX, Rule 13 of the CPC. 5. The Commissioner of Endowment upon adjudication of the petition filed under Order-IX Rule 13 of CPC has passed present impugned order dated 20.01.2020 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the notice was duly issued in the name of Sk.Naisul Hak son of Sk.Abdul Wahap, whereas the petitioner is Sk.Naimul Hak son of Abdul Wahab and the petitioner failed to satisfy the Court that he is the actual person having rightful owner having possession over the land. It is further observed by the Commissioner of Endowment that notice has been duly served on the petitioner which he refused to accept. 6. Upon hearing both the parties, it is found that as per the original R.O.R. filed under Annexure-5, the name written as “Sk.Naimul Hak” son of Abdul Wahab. It is not known to us what documents were filed by the petitioner before the learned Commissioner of Page 3 of 6 Endowment to satisfy his identity on the face of discrepancy crept in the R.O.R. published in the website. The dispute is due to in the discrepancy in the name of the petitioner according to the uploaded copy of the R.O.R. in the website, and recording of the name of the petitioner as Marfatdar of the deity in the RoR under Annexure-5. It is true that the petitioner has not taken any step for correction of the RoR till date and he has not filed any document before us disclosing his original identity as Sk.Naimul Hak son of Abdul Wahab or Sk.Naisul Hak son of Abdul Wahap. We also do not want to enter into such factual disputes at this stage. 7. Be that as it may, since the copy of the original sale deeds produced under Annexures-2, 3 and 4 are not disputed, it prima facie shows a valid sale transaction made in favour of the petitioner. So, we feel it appropriate to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on merit. It is further found that the permission granted under Annexure-1 is not presently disputed by either parties. 8. Since the learned Commissioner has proceeded on limited grounds and there appears prima facie case in favour of the petitioner to be the owner of the property in question in terms of the copies of the registered sale deeds produced, we direct the Page 4 of 6 Commissioner of Endowment to grant an opportunity of hearing on the merits of the case in O.A. No.20 of 2016, where admittedly the petitioner was not heard before passing the final order, by remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Endowment. The impugned order dated 20.01.2020 is set aside and the learned Commissioner is directed to decide Misc. Case No.22 of 2019 afresh. The petitioner is at liberty to produce all such materials in his favour and we hope that learned Commissioner shall decide said Misc. Case in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition. 9. We make it clear that any observation made by us in this order touching the merit of contentions of the parties shall not influence learned Commissioner of Endowment while deciding the case afresh. He shall proceed in the case without being influenced by any such observation made by us in the present order. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Page 5 of 6 11. Till a decision is taken by the Commissioner of Endowment in Misc. Case No.22 of 2019, status quo as on date over the case land in question shall be maintained. (B.P.Routray) Judge Judge (Savitri Ratho) Bichi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 11-Apr-2025 17:09:39 Page 6 of 6