- (1.) The application for intervention is dismissed.
(2.) Appellant No. 1 - State of Orissa is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa in RSA No. 10 of 2002 and Misc. Case No. 65 of 2008.
(3.) For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we shall extract the short impugned order as under :- "The appellants and respondent no. 2 have filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC for compromise stating therein that to cut short the long term litigation and for the benefit and improvement of the respondent no. 2 Religious Trust they want to compound the matter. Previously the parties had filed Misc. Case No. 189 of 2006 for recording compromise in the appeal. But the Tahasildar, Cuttack raised objection on the plea that the property under litigation has high market value and the amount contemplated in compromise is very low. Objection was also raised by the Commissioner of Endowments that in absence of the permission of the Commissioner u/s 19 of the OHRE Act, the compromise cannot be effected as the compromise will create stitiban tenancy in favour of the appellants. The prayer for compromise was accordingly, disallowed for want of permission of the Commissioner of endowments u/s 19 of the OHRE Act. The parties, therefore, filed the present petition for compromise indicating inter alia that permission of the Commissioner of endowments has been obtained for the compromise and the amount to be paid by the appellants has been raised to Rupees thirty lakhs. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of Endowments wherein it is stated that Deputy Commissioner of endowments by successive letters dated 5.2.2008 and 31.3.2008 intimated the respondent No.2 that no permission can be accorded for compromise in the greater interest of the institution. It is also indicated in the counter affidavit that present petition for compromise is not maintainable after the order of rejection in Misc. Case No. 189 of 2006. Reply to this affidavit of the Commissioner of Endowments has been filed by the respondent no. 2 to the effect that the letters of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under Annexures A & B are to be ignored as the Commissioner of Endowments in Memo No. 10864 dated 5.9.2007 granted permission to respondent no. 2 to effect compromise in the second appeal. In this regard, the appellants and respondent no. 2 rely on the order dated 28.4.1989 of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa passed in OA No. 171 of 1988-II under Section 19 of the Act, Order No. 7 dated 11.12.2006 of the Commissioner of Endowments in misc. Case No. 17 of 2005 and Memo No. 10864 dated 5.9.2007 of the office of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments rely on Memo No. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369 dated 31.3.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to respondent no. 2. In the order in A. No. 171of 1988 on the prayer of the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner of Endowments accorded permission for sale of the lands of the religious institution fixing minimum rate at Rs. 20,000/- per gunth for lands adjoining road and at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per gunth for other lands. In order dated 11.12.2006 of Misc. Case No. 17 of 2005 it is reflected that permission was sought for the compromise, but because it was submitted that the matter does not come within the purview of section 19 of the OHRE Act, the misc. case was dropped and the matter was left to be dealt with in management side. In memo No. 10864 respondent no.2 was permitted to enter into compromise in the second appeal, if he so wants. But thereafter, in Memo nos. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369 dated 13.3.2008 respondent no. 2 was intimated by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments that he cannot be permitted to enter into a compromise in the greater interest of the institution. All these documents show that initially the Commissioner of Endowments had permitted for sale of the lands of the institution for rupees seven lakhs approximately, but litigation crept in and no such sale could be effected. Now, by way of compromise respondent no. 2 is willing to create stitiban tenancy in favour of the appellants in respect of the same lands of religious institution in exchange for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the religious institution. The Commissioner of Endowments has also passed order and intimated the order to respondent no.2 that he can enter into a compromise. The previous orders passed under section 19 of the Act and the present order permitting respondent no.2 to enter into compromise passed by the Commissioner of Endowments in substance amounts to accord of permission under section 19 of the OHRE Act. Dr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for Commissioner of Endowments, however, states that because the money aid by the appellants will go for the benefit of religious institution, the parties may do well to raise the amount considering the fact that the suit lands are now urban valuable lands. After this submission of Dr. Rath, there was a discussion in open court and learned counsel for the appellants on instruction submitted that instead of rupees thirty lakhs, the appellants would pay rupees forty five lakhs and that may be incorporated in the terms of compromise. A memo was also filed in this regard. Since the parties are willing to enter into compromise and end the litigation and the Commissioner of Endowments has permitted the respondent no. 1 to enter into such compromise and since the amount offered by the appellants is more than six and half times of the amount initially set by the Commissioner of Endowments, the prayer for compromise is allowed and the appeal is disposed of on compromise according to the terms of the compromise. The compromise petition along with memo enhancing the compromise amount from rupees thirty lakhs to rupees forty five lakhs will form part of the decree. The appeal and misc. case are thus disposed of.";