IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6995 of 2022 Kali Charan Senapati …. Petitioner Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate Being assisted by Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Commissioner of Endowments & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, Advocate (for Commissioner of Endowments) Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER Order No. 19.02.2026 12. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the Notice No.448/Rev. (BC) dated 21.02.2022 (Annexure-4) asking the Petitioner to vacate the land under his occupation pertaining to Plot No.1575 under Khata No.381/1 in Mauza-Sukhilahar- Samil-Mahulia, measuring an area of Ac.0.01 dec. (420 sqr. ft.) (kisam Gharabari) in the district of Mayurbhanj (for brevity the case land). 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the case land is being occupied by the Petitioner for more than 30 years. Till 2016, the Petitioner was paying rent in respect of the case land, but thereafter the Sub-Collector, Baripada-cum-Trustee, Shri Shri Raghunath Jew Bije, Baripada (for brevity, the deity) refused to accept rent in respect of the case land. A proceeding under Section 25 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 in O.A. No.89 of 2016 was initiated against the Petitioner for unauthorised occupation of the case land, which is the deity’s property. 3.1. O.A. No.89 of 2016 was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2019, directing the Petitioner to vacate the case land. The said order was not within the knowledge of the Petitioner. 3.2. Accordingly, the impugned notice was issued by the order of the Collector, Mayurbhanj asking the Petitioner to vacate the case land. 4. When the matter was under consideration, this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025, directed the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack to make an enquiry and submit a report with regard to the nature of occupation of the Petitioner over the case land and as to whether there is any difficulty in allowing the Petitioner to occupy the land on any terms and conditions, which would not be prejudicial to the deity’s interest. 4.1. Accordingly, the report was submitted by the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Cuttack, which was taken into consideration on 10.09.2025. In his report, the Additional Assistant Commissioner stated that there is no difficulty in allowing the Petitioner to occupy the case land, if he clears all his pending dues and executes an agreement of lease for the case land and goes on paying the rent regularly at the present market rate, following the terms and conditions to be fixed by the Temple Administration/ Executive Officer, Baripada Debottar in the interest of the deity. 5. Accordingly, this Court directed the learned Counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments to take instruction with regard to arrears, to be paid by the Petitioner for execution of agreement. 6. The matter was then taken up on 01.12.2025 and Mr. Nath, learned Counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments submitted that the arrear dues of the Petitioner up to August, 2025 was calculated at Rs.65,100/-. A copy of the calculation sheet was submitted to this Court along with Letter No.1159 dated 18.09.2025 of Sub-Collector-cum-Executive Officer, Baripada Debottar. A copy of the said letter was also served on learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who prayed for a short adjournment to clear up the pending dues for occupation of the case land. The matter was then adjourned to 29.01.2026, on which date, an adjournment was sought for to clear up the dues. While granting such adjournment, this Court made it clear that no further prayer for extension of time to deposit the outstanding dues shall be entertained in future. Today, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate prays for further adjournment to clear up the pending dues. 7. In view of the order dated 29.01.2026; this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made by Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. Page 4 of 4 8. Since the Petitioner failed to clear up the dues up to August, 2025 within the time as directed by this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. The Opposite Party No.3 is at liberty to evict the Petitioner from the case land pursuant to the impugned notice under Annexure-4. 11. Interim order dated 05.04.2022 passed in I.A. No.3506 of 2022 stands vacated. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Prasant Designation: Secretary Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Feb-2026 14:08:16