TARA @ TARAMANI PARHI vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF ODISHA, KHURDA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
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
Page 1 of 13
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
th
dated 13 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
th
confirming the Judgment dated 13 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
Page 2 of 13
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
Page 3 of 13
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
Page 4 of 13
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
th
dated 7 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
Page 5 of 13
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
th
Commissioner, vide his Judgment dated 13 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
Page 6 of 13
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
Page 7 of 13
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
Page 8 of 13
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
Page 9 of 13
writ appeal is pending before this Court being W.A. No.604 of
2026, in which the Petitioners have already entered
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
Page 10 of 13
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
Page 11 of 13
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
Page 12 of 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,
th
Dated 20 May, 2026/Mona
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-May-2026 12:29:43
W.P.(C) No.15824 OF 2026
Page 13 of 13