D.DASH,J. - (1.)This writ application has been filed challenging an order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowment, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 126 of 1999 in the matter of and during pendency of a proceeding under Section 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (in short called 'the Act').
(2.)Facts necessary for the purpose are as under:- A proceeding under Section 25 of the Act was initiated at the instance of Sri Sri Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu represented through the Trust Board by its Executive Officer (opp. party no.2 in the present writ application). The proceeding was initially against one Purusottam Mishra and the present petitioner with others have been substituted on account of his death and are defending the said proceeding. Said Purusottam Mishra, the original opp. party before the Commissioner of Endowment receiving the notice of the proceeding under Section 25 of the Act, filed a civil suit numbered as T.S. No. 452 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the present petitioner before the Commissioner of Endowment to stay further proceeding of that original application till disposal of T.S. No. 452 of 2000. The learned Commissioner of Endowment having refuse to stay the proceeding, the same is now under challenge.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when in the civil suit the claim of the petitioner with regard to his right, title and interest over the suit land and confirmation of possession is pending for decision as also the legality of the order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in O.A. No. 23 of 1983 which is the basis of the claim of the opp. party no. 1, the learned Commissioner ought to have stayed the proceeding and unless that is done the present petitioner's right as claimed cannot get protected at least till the final decision by the competent court. Therefore, She contends that the order of the learned Commissioner is patently illegal and as such is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 refuting the above submission contends that the provision of Section 25 of the Act has been brought in the special statute with particular intent and to serve in achieving the objective in order to immediately catch hold the mischief and if pendency of a civil suit would stall the proceeding under Section 25 of the Act, then practically the provision Section 25 of the Act would become nugatory and meaningless. Therefore, according to him, the learned Commissioner has rightly refused to stay the proceeding till disposal of the suit and there being no error of law on the face of the said order is not liable to be interfered with.