JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, agricultural land, which his clients want to sell, stands recorded in the RoR in name of the deity as 'Nijagruha'. His clients applied for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' under section 19-A of Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. The Commissioner by impugned judgment dated 11th November, 2022 said that since petitioner no.1 stands recorded as 'Sebayat' in respect of the deity, he is only caretaker of the property. He has no right to alienate property belonging to the deity unless it is shown that in fact he had acquired the property in name of the deity. Such evidence is lacking. Furthermore, from report of Inspector of Endowments it appeared, inter alia that prior to date of inspection, the deity was being worshipped at a pucca temple in the village and public were getting chance for free darshan. He submits, entry in the RoR is sufficient for prima facie appreciation that it is a private deity. He seeks interference. 2. Ms. Niadu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner. On query from Court, she draws attention to rule-4-A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959. She submits, sub-rule (3) provides for prima facie satisfaction. On further query from Court, she submits no objections were received. 3. Sub-rule(3) in rule 4A is reproduced below. '(3) On receiving the objection if any, within the stipulated period and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties if the Commissioner is prima facie satisfied that the institution in question is not a public religious institution for which no sanction under section 19 of the Act is required, he shall, grant 'No Objection Certificate' in Form AA to these rules.' (emphasis supplied) 4. Procedure for issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' stands provided for in rule 4-A. It is only on receiving objection that sub-rule(3) enables the Commissioner to obtain prima facie satisfaction that the institution in question is not a public religious institution. Facts in this case reveal that the land stands recorded in the RoR in name of the deity as 'Nijagruha'. Further fact is absence of objection. We have also perused the inspection report and find that the villagers admitted that the deity resides in the private house of petitioners and they have no access. Facts in this case reveal that the land stands recorded in the RoR in name of the deity as 'Nijagruha'. Further fact is absence of objection. We have also perused the inspection report and find that the villagers admitted that the deity resides in the private house of petitioners and they have no access. This, in our view, is sufficient for prima facie appreciation that the deity is not a public deity. Again, there being no objection, enquiry into source of title of petitioner, as having purchased the land in name of the deity, is also not warranted. It must be remembered that the appreciation to be is regarding private deity. What appears to have happened is that the Commissioner found prima facie that the deity may be a public deity, going by the villagers contention that earlier it used to reside in a pucca temple of the village. 5. Petitioners are entitled to 'No Objection Certificate'. Impugned judgment is set aside and quashed. The Commissioner will issue the 'No Objection Certificate' in prescribed form within three weeks of communication. 6. The writ petition is disposed of.