Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Inserted vide Odisha Act No. 22 of 1989. said property within such time as the Collector may specify in the said notice. If such notice is not obeyed, the Collector shall remove him or depute a Sub- ordinate Officer to remove such person or agent. In the case of any resistance or obstruction the Collector shall hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction still continues, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person and on his appearance may send him with a warrant in such form as may be prescribed for imprisonment in the civil jail of the district for a period not exceeding thirty days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such resistance or obstruction. (4) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Assistant Commissioner or any person acting under his instruction or authorised by him for anything done in good faith under Sub-Sections (1) and (2). (5) Every person authorized by 1[the Commissioner] or acting under his instructions in pursuance of this Section shall be deemed to be a ‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860). 2[(6) The provisions contained in this Section shall mutatis mutandis apply to cases – (a) for delivery of possession of a Religious institution alongwith its endowments or recorded, accounts and properties thereof to a succeeding hereditary Trustee; and (b) for recovery of pension of leasehold land belonging to a Religious institution after expiry of the term of the lease.] Notes :– The property belongs to the deity – the non hereditary trustee intend to retain the same for the purpose of improvement of the religious institution cannot directly approach the Hon’ble High Court. Rather they should have approached the Commissioner of Endowment U/s- 9 against the order of Additional Commissioner of Endowment passed the order for recovery of possession in favour of the religious institution. 106 (2008) CLT 150, 2008 (II) CLR 117, 2008 (Supp. I) OLR 737 (Sri Janmajaya Das and another Vs. State of Orissa and others) Claim having been made for permanent tenancy of the rooms which had been occupied under the leases granted by the hereditary trustees – the leases were granted without due procedure of law as there being no sanction of the Commissioner of Endowment and the leases were void in view of section 19, 2003 (I) OLR 145 (Surendra Babu Patra and Others Vs. Commissioner of Endowment Orissa, Bhubaneswar and Others)