SABITRI SAHU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . This writ petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission after notice on consent of the parties. Opp.Party No.7 in O.S. No.26 of 1994 -II under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (in short, 'the Act) has filed this writ petition challenging to the judgment delivered on 27.7.2002 by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa. It appears form the impugned order that the managing trustee of the public religious institution applied for recovery of possession of Schedules A & B landed properties inter alia on the assertion that opposite parties 1, 2, 3 & 6 while in possession of such properties in lieu of rendering services, they illegally sold away such properties to opp. Parties 4, 5, & 7 through registered sale deeds and in that respect no prior permission under Section 19 of the Act was obtained form the Commissioner of Endowments. During pendency of the proceeding the opp.party No.6 died and was substituted by her legal heir i.e. opp. Party No.7. None of the opposite party -members, in spite of providing opportunities, filed any written statement or adduced evidence before learned Commissioner of Endowments.

(2.) BE that as it may, in course of hearing and recording of evidence form the side of the petitioner before the Court below, the opp.party No.7 i.e. the writ petitioner participated in the hearing and cross -examined the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimant -petitioner. On assessment of evidence on record and the documentary evidence, such as Records of Right Exts.1 and 1/a, learned Commissioner of Endowments recorded the finding that the property belongs to the deity and that was in possession of the Sebayats, who rendered the services to the deity and the landed properties were sold illegally and in violation of provision of Section 19 of the Act. Accordingly, learned Commissioner of Endowments passed order to evict Opp.Parties 4 and 5 form the Schedule -A land and the opp.party No.7 form the Schedule -B land and to restore the said land to the possession of the petitioner -deity through its managing trustee. As noted above, opp.party No.7 in that proceeding has filed this writ petition challenging to the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner directing eviction of the petitioner form the Schedule -B property.

(3.) ON behalf of learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Endowments (Opp.Party No.1) and the Managing Trustee (Opp.Party No.3), argument is advanced that finding recorded by learned Commissioner is on the basis of evidence available on record. The Records of Right with respect to Schedule -B property was correctly read with due reference to the evidence on record of P.W.1, who was subjected to cross -examination by the writ petitioner and in course of cross -examination the writ petitioner also suggested about the nature of land given for providing balbhog and not projecting a case or advancing the plea that balbhog was supplied in lieu of the rent for possessing such land. In such circumstance, a new case cannot be made out before the Writ Court and the factual finding being neither illegal nor suffering form perversity, the matter cannot be effectively adjudicated under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.