W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** 1. Tara @ Taramani Parhi 2. Sukesh Parhi …… Petitioners -Versus- 1. Principal Secretary, Law Department Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar 2. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. 3.Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Odisha, Bhubaneswar. 4.Biswanath Mohanty, Ex-Managing Trustee of Sri Biswanath Mahadev Bije, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar .….. Opp. Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioners : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate For Opp. Party No.1 : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel For Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 : Ms. Pratyusha Naidu, Advocate For Opp. Party No.4 (Caveator) : Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Rath, Advocate CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ---------------------------------------------------- Heard and disposed of on 20.05.2026 ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 2 JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Appearance memo of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 4, filed in Court is taken on record. 3. Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset submits that, declaration about the previous writ application could not be made inadvertently in the reference certificate of the present writ petition. Hence, an affidavit has been filed stating the same. The affidavit so filed in Court is taken on record. 3.1. Mr. Rath, learned counsel submits that a copy of the brief has already been received by him for the Caveator- Opposite Party No.4. 4. Petitioners, in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 13th May, 2026 (Annexure-9) passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in R.C. No.5 of 2026, thereby dismissing a revision filed by the Petitioners under Section 9 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and confirming the Judgment dated 13th April, 2026 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.27 of 2014 initiated under Section 68 of the Act. W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 3 4.1. Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are residing in a portion of the land over Plot No.332/1636 of Khata No.619 to an extent of Ac.0.057 dec. situated in Mouza-Bhubaneswar Sahara Unit No.41, Chandrasekharpur under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha (for brevity ‘the case land’), over which the religious institution namely, Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani Temple, has been constructed. The said religious institution is not indexed. However, in the said premises, another religious institution namely, Sri Sri Biswanath Mahadev Bije has been constructed, which is indexed. 4.2. It is her submission that Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani Temple is constructed over the case land, which is recorded in the name of G.A. Department, Government of Odisha. Thus, the Opposite Party No.4, who is the Managing Trustee of Sri Sri Biswanath Mahadev Bije, Chandrasekharpur, has no locus standi to initiate a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act for eviction of the Petitioners. It is further submitted that a proceeding under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, (for brevity, ‘the OPP Act’) has been initiated against the Petitioners by the G.A. Department, which is pending before the Estate Officer. Thus, a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act is not at all maintainable, and learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments does not have any jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 68 of the Act for eviction of the Petitioners. W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 4 4.3. It is further submitted that initially the Petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.34353 of 2025 assailing a notice issued against them under Section 4(1) of the OPP Act. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 03.12.2025 without entertaining the writ petition and permitting the Petitioners to file an appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay, if so advised, and for interim protection as well before the concerned Appellate Authority under Section 12(1) of the OPLE Act within a period of 15 days from the said order. Subsequently, the said order was modified vide order dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure-2) passed in I.A. No.22256 of 2025 filed by the present Opposite Party No.4 with the following direction: - “7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitioner stands dismissed. Since the Petitioner has suppressed the facts, this Court is inclined to impose cost of Rs.5000/- on the Petitioner. The said cost shall be deposited with the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Funds within a week.” 4.4. Further, the Petitioners moved this Court to clarify that the proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the OPP Act and not under the provisions of the OPLE Act and also that the case land does not belong to the religious institution. This Court, vide order dated 11.12.2025 passed in the aforesaid I.A. No.22256 of 2025, made it clear that the case land in question belongs to the G.A. Department and not to the deity. However, the cost imposed on the Petitioners at the time of the disposal of the interim application (I.A. No.22256 of 2025) was not recalled and remained unaltered. W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 5 4.5. In the meantime, the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act was disposed of directing eviction of the Petitioners. The Petitioners, assailing the same, had moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.31975 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2025 with an observation that the Petitioners have a remedy under Section 9 of the Act to assail the order of eviction passed under Section 68 of the Act. The said fact is not disclosed in the present writ petition. Hence, by filing an affidavit in Court today, the Petitioners brought the same to the notice of the Court. In terms of the observation made by this Court, the Petitioners filed R.C. No.25 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Act, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 7th January, 2026 with the following order: “ORDER The matter is remanded to the Court of the Asst. Commissioner who shall take care to discuss the following three important aspects amongst other aspects as would be dims fit and proper: (i) Whether the petition U/s. 68 OHRE Act is maintainable in respect of the case land? (ii) Whether, the case property/land is a religious endowment? (iii) Nature of trusteeship of the institution. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar on 2.2.2026 for instruction. It is made clear that the remand is an open one. No order as to cost.” 4.6. The Petitioners have also not disclosed the aforesaid facts in the present writ petition. However, pursuant to the direction made by learned Commissioner of Endowments in RC No.25 of 2025, the Petitioners filed an application W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 6 assailing the maintainability of the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act before the learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar. 5. Learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar entertaining such application, passed the order dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure-8) holding that the prayer made by the Petitioners to drop the proceeding for want of jurisdiction of learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, is devoid of merit and accordingly the petition filed by the Petitioners was rejected. Assailing the said order, the Petitioners moved the learned Commissioner of Endowments by filing a revision under Section 9 of the Act, which was registered as RC No.5 of 2026. Learned Commissioner, vide his Judgment dated 13th May, 2026 (Annexure-9), held the proceeding under Section 68 to be maintainable and thereby confirmed the order passed by learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments under Annexure-8. It was also directed therein that the learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Bhubaneswar should dispose of the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act as soon as possible without making any unnecessary further delay. 6. Ms. Mahapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits with vehemence that both the Courts erroneously held that even if the case land over which the religious institution exists does not belong to the deity, still a proceeding under Section 68 would be maintainable. Such a W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 7 finding is not only illegal but also contrary to the provisions of the law. 6.1. It is thus submitted by Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel that when the religious institution is not the title holder of the case land, a proceeding at the instance of the Managing Trustee (Opposite Party No.4) will not be maintainable. Learned Assistant Commissioner as well as Commissioner failed to appreciate the same and passed the impugned judgments under Annexure- 8 & 9. As such, the impugned judgments are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside, and the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act would be dropped instantaneously, more particularly when the Petitioners are already facing a proceeding for eviction under the provisions of the OPP Act. 7. Ms. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments, refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners have all throughout suppressed material facts before this Court, for which cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed upon them by this Court. Further, the entry of the ancestor of the Petitioners was in the capacity of Pujaka of the temple engaged by the Managing Trustee of the temple, who has expired since long. 7.1. She further submits that neither of the Petitioners is a Pujaka of the temple and thus, they are not entitled to occupy the premises of the religious institution. They are forcibly occupying a portion of the religious endowment of the Deity. Hence, the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act has rightly W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 8 been initiated against them by the Managing Trustee of the religious institution. 7.2. She further submits that, for initiation of a proceeding under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, the religious institution need not be the title holder of the property in question. Since the Petitioners are occupying the premises of the religious institution and Section 68 (1) (c) of the Act empowers the Executive Officer or person in management to initiate such a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act, the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act is maintainable, which has rightly been observed by learned Assistant Commissioner as well as Commissioner. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No.4, reiterating the submissions made by Ms. Naidu, learned Counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments, submits that the Petitioners have suppressed the direction made by the Commissioner of Endowments in R.C. No.25 of 2025, wherein the matter was remitted to learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments for fresh adjudication of the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act. While remitting the matter, learned Commissioner framed three issues for adjudication, which are follows: “(i) Whether the petition U/s under Section 68 of the OHRE Act is maintainable in respect of the case land? (ii) Whether the case property/land is a religious endowment? (iii) Nature of the Trusteeship of the institution.” W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 9 8.1. When Petitioners had the opportunity to raise the said issue at the stage of final adjudication of the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act, they filed an application in the midst of the proceeding assailing the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to entertain a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act. The same is nothing but to delay the proceeding and to occupy the religious institution unauthorisedly. The Petitioners are unauthorizedly occupying the premises of the religious institution. Opposite Party No.4, being the Managing Trustee, is competent to initiate a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, learned Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as well as the Commissioner of Endowments committed no error in passing the impugned orders under Annexures-8 and 9. 9. He further submits that, at paragraph-4 of the writ petition, the Petitioners have categorically admitted that the father of the Petitioner No.2 was the Pujaka of both the deities, namely, Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani and Sri Sri Biswanath Mahadev. Both the religious institutions situate over the case land in one compound. Hence, it is not correct to allege that the Petitioners are residing only in the premises of Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani. None of the Petitioners was ever appointed as Pujaka of the religious institutions. Thus, the Petitioners are occupying the premises of the religious institutions unauthorisedly and they are liable to be evicted. 9.1. Further, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the property belongs to the G.A. Department, a W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 10 appearance. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, should be dismissed with costs. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 11. Perused the materials on record. 9.1. Further, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the property belongs to the G.A. Department, a W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 10 appearance. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, should be dismissed with costs. 10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 11. Perused the materials on record. Section 68(1) of the Act reads as under: "Putting trustee or Executive Officer in possession- (1) Where a person has been appointed- (a) as trustee or Executive Officer of a religious institution; or (b) to discharge the functions of a trustee of a religious institution in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (c) as the Executive Officer in any scheme settled under the provisions of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1939 (Odisha Act IV of 1939) and such person is resisted in, or prevented from, obtaining possession of the religious institution or of the record, accounts and properties thereof, by a trustee, office-holder or servant of the religious institution who has dismissed or suspended from his officer or is otherwise not entitled to be in possession, or by any person claiming or deriving title from such trustee, office-holder or servant, other than a person claiming in good faith to be in possession of his own account or on account of some person not being such trustee, office-holder or servant, the Assistant Commissioner concerned shall, on application by the person so appointed, direct delivery of possession of the religious institution and its endowments or the records, accounts and properties thereof, as the case may be, to him in the prescribed manner.” (Emphasis supplied) W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 11 Further, “religious institution” has been defined under Section 3(xiii) of the Act as under: “religious institution” means a math, a temple and endowment attached thereto or a specific endowment and includes an institution under direct management of the State Government;” 12. Thus, in view of the clear definition of religious institution and the scope of Section 68 of the Act, it is clear that the premises of a temple or religious institution also come under the definition of a religious institution. The Petitioners allege that they are residing in the premises of Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani. Both Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani and lord Sri Sri Biswanath Mahadev situate in one campus over the case land. It is also admitted by Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners that Sri Sri Biswanath Mahadev is an indexed temple of which the Opposite Party No. 4 is the Managing Trustee. The father of the Petitioner No.2 was a Pujaka of Sri Sri Biswanath Mahadev being appointed by the then Managing Trustee of the temple. After his death, none of the Petitioners has been appointed as a Pujaka or servant of the temple. They have never been permitted to reside in the premises of the religious institution. When both the temples, namely, Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani and lord Sri Sri Biswanath Mahadev situate in one and the same premises, the plea of the Petitioners that they are occupying the premises of Maa Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani holds no water. They are in unauthorized occupation of the case land, which is part and parcel of both W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 12 the religious institutions. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Petitioners are unauthorisedly occupying the religious institutions and their endowments. As such, a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act is very much maintainable against the Petitioners. 12.1. Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel further raised an objection that the case land being not recorded in the name of the religious institution and the Record of Right stands in the name of the G.A. Department of Government of Odisha, it cannot be treated as a religious endowment of the temples. We are unable to accept such submission as neither Section 3 (xiii) nor Section 68 of the Act contemplates that endowment of a religious institution is required to be recorded in the name of the religious institution. Further, proviso to Section 41 of the Act stipulates that presumption attached to religious endowments has to be disproved by the person who claims it otherwise. The Petitioners have not yet discharged such burden of proof. 13. Ms. Mahapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, however, raised an issue that the religious institution is in unauthorized occupation of the case land recorded in the name of G.A. Department. The same not being an issue before us, this Court is not delving into the same in the present writ petition. 14. Perused the orders passed under Annexures-8 & 9. We are in complete agreement with the discussions and observations made the by learned Assistant Commissioner of W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026 p. 13 Endowments under Annexure-8 and the learned Commissioner of Endowments in Annexure-9. Since the issue of maintainability of the proceeding has already been decided, as raised by the Petitioners, the same is no longer available to them to be raised at the time of final hearing. The rest two issues, as directed by the learned Commissioners in R.C. No.25 of 2025, are only available to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments while adjudicating the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act, along with other issues, if any, framed. 15. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 20th May, 2026/Mona