Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 182 (ORI)

PRAFULLA CHANDRA MAHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2007-03-14

I.MAHANTY

body2007
JUDGMENT : I. Mahanty, J. - The petitioner in this writ application seeks to challenge the order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar allowing the Consolidation Revision Case Nos. 267 and 268 of 1983 by affirming the order of the Consolidation Officer, Satyabadi dated 27.2.1982 directing recording the suit plots in the name of the deity Baral Balunkeswar Dev and quashing/reversing the order dated 20.9.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that during 1925 settlement, the suit land was recorded in the name of Baral Balunkeswar Dev marfat sevak Chinta Patra Mali. In 1977 settlement, Khata Nos. 223 and 226 were recorded in the name of Baral Balunkeswar Dev marfat Lingaraj Mahapatra, the predecessor of the present petitioner. In O.S. No. 3/40/56-519 of 1957, the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri settled Schedule 'A' property of the deity and directed that the said property will be enjoyed by sevaks in lieu of performance of specific duties towards the deity and on discontinuance of the same, shall cease their rights. The further case of the petitioner is that the disputed property was allotted in favour of their predecessor-Lingaraj Mahapatra in lieu of service towards the deity. Thereafter, in a proceeding under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, the O.E.A. Collector had settled the said land in the name of the petitioner's predecessor in Claim Case No. 2957 of 1961-62. It further transpires that the Executive Officer of the deity filed Case No. 41 of 1977 u/s 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act and the same was dismissed on 5.11.1975 and no appeal has been filed against the same. In the backdrop of the aforesaid events, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the O.E.A. Collector having not been challenged in any competent Court of law, the Consolidation authorities are legally bound by the order of the O.E.A. Collector. In the backdrop of the aforesaid events, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the O.E.A. Collector having not been challenged in any competent Court of law, the Consolidation authorities are legally bound by the order of the O.E.A. Collector. Accordingly, the petitioner submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had passed the appropriate order directing recording of the land in the name of the petitioner as successor in interest of late Lingaraj Mohapatra and the revisions preferred by the Executive Officer of the Trust Board ought to have been dismissed and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa in favour of the opposite parties, ought to be quashed and the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation ought to be affirmed. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party-Executive Officer of Trust Board, submitted that the writ application ought to be dismissed, in view of the finding arrived at by the Commissioner Consolidation as the Commissioner had gone into details of the rival contentions and has come to a conclusion that the claim of the present petitioner is baseless. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, the following facts are used :- (a) that it is admitted by both the parties to the dispute that the said land belonged to the deity "Baral Balunkeswar Dev", a public deity, (b) After commencement of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, the estate of the deity was under management of the Endowment Commissioner since 1952. (c) Exercising power under the OHRE Act, the Endowment Commissioner constituted a Trust Board with Lingaraj Mahapatra (predecessor of the present petitioner), Biswanath Mahapatra and Ghanashyam Mahapatra, who are non-hereditary trustees. Learned Commissioner further took note of the fact that the said order of Endowment Commissioner dated 25.7.1952 appointing Lingaraj Mahapatra and two others as non-hereditary trustees was for a period of two years from the date of their appointment, (e) While the Endowment Commissioner had also the authority for sufficient reason to extend the period of the Trusteeship, such extension, in no case, can be beyond six moths in aggregate. Thus, the tenure of the predecessor of the petitioner i.e. Lingaraj Mahapatra at best came to an end on 25.1.1955. Thus, the tenure of the predecessor of the petitioner i.e. Lingaraj Mahapatra at best came to an end on 25.1.1955. (f) It is also a matter of record as indicated in the impugned order that no further extension of tenure of Lingaraj Mahapatra was granted in any proceeding under the Orissa Consolidation Act. 5. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on the order of the O.E.A. Collector dated 21.10.1970. The Commissioner Consolidation had come to hold that such an order of the OEA Collector being passed on 21.10.1970, at least 15 years after completion of the tenure of Lingaraj Mahapatra as a non-hereditary trustee, was without jurisdiction and therefore, the decision of the OEA Collector regarding marfatdar cannot no longer be held good. Learned Commissioner has further taken note of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri in which the civil Court also took note of the order of the Commissioner of Endowments dated 25.7.1952 and further, in answer to issue No. 6, affirmed the fact that the predecessor of the present petitioner- i.e. Lingaraj Mahapatra was not a "hereditary trustee". Section 3(xvi) of the OHRE Act defines "trustee" means a person by whatever designation known, in whom the administration of a religious institution and endowment are vested and includes any person or any body who or which is liable as if such person or body were a trustee. Clause (viii) of Section 3 defines "non-hereditary trustee" as a trustee who is not a hereditary trustee. Since it is the admitted case of the parties that Lingaraj Mahapatra was not a hereditary trustee, but a non-hereditary trustee, therefore, no right flows from late Lingaraj Mahapatra in favour of his successor/petitioner for the purpose of seeking interference with the same. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Radhanath Das Vs. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Radhanath Das Vs. Consolidation Officer and Others, wherein a Division Bench of this Court came to hold that the authorities under the Consolidation Act are only concerned with the question of title or ownership of the land and dispute relating to the office of marfatdar and possession of the deity's land by any person cannot come under the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities and that such disputes relating to the property of the deity are to be determined under the provisions of the Special Act enacted for the purpose, namely, the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. 7. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the facts and the dispute which arose for adjudication in the said case are not at all similar to the facts and disputes raised for consideration in the present case. In the case referred to herein above, while the consolidation operation in the area was going on, a person filed an objection claiming that he was the "sole marfatdar" of the deity whereas his opponent had also filed an objection for the self-same land with a prayer to record him as a stitiban raiyat claiming to have obtained the said land from the "marfatdar" in the year 1955. Therefore, when the dispute arose relating to the office of marfatdar, determination of such dispute obviously had to be made under the provisions of OHRE Act, 1951. In the present case at hand, no such dispute at all exists. On the contrary, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is seeking to claim a right that he claims to have inherited from his predecessor who was also admittedly a marfatdar of the deity in question, but in his capacity as a "non-hereditary trustee". The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that the present petitioner could not produce any evidence regarding the continuance of his predecessor-Lingaraj Mahapatra as trustee beyond 1955. In other words, no document was brought on record to show continuance of said Lingaraj Mahapatra as a "trustee" beyond 25.1.1955. It is also not in dispute that the deity being a public deity, is being maintained by a Trust Board created under the OHRE Act. In other words, no document was brought on record to show continuance of said Lingaraj Mahapatra as a "trustee" beyond 25.1.1955. It is also not in dispute that the deity being a public deity, is being maintained by a Trust Board created under the OHRE Act. In view of the distinctions noted hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case and the disputes raised before the Consolidation Authorities, in the present case, fall within their jurisdiction/competence for determination. 8. For the reasons stated above, I am in complete agreement with the impugned order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner of Consolidation in Revision Case Nos. 267 of and 268 of the 1983. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed