Occupancy of religious premises without valid appointment as servant warrants eviction under Section 68 of OHRE Act.

The Petitioners, occupants of land over Plot No. 332/1636 in Mouza-Bhubaneswar, challenged an order of the Commissioner of Endowments that confirmed a proceeding for their eviction under Section 68 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.

The Petitioners argued that because the land is recorded in the name of the Government (G.A. Department) and not the deity, and since an eviction proceeding under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (OPP Act) is pending, the Endowments Commissioner lacked jurisdiction.

The Opposite Party No. 4 (Managing Trustee) contended that the Petitioners were mere family members of a deceased Pujaka (priest) and were unauthorizedly occupying the temple compound.

1. Whether a proceeding under Section 68 of the Act is maintainable for eviction when the title of the land is recorded in the name of the Government rather than the religious institution.

2. Whether the premises of a temple, regardless of formal ROR (Record of Rights) status, falls under the definition of a "religious institution" for the purpose of recovery of possession.

The Court applied Section 3(xiii) of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, which defines "religious institution" broadly to include temples and attached endowments.

It further applied Section 68(1), which empowers an Executive Officer or Managing Trustee to seek delivery of possession of a religious institution’s records or properties from persons who are not entitled to be in possession.

The Court invoked the proviso to Section 41 of the Act, which creates a legal presumption in favor of religious endowments that must be disproved by the party claiming otherwise.

The Court reasoned that "religious institution" under Section 3(xiii) encompasses the physical premises and compound of a temple.

Since the Petitioners admitted that the father of Petitioner No. 2 was a Pujaka appointed by the Managing Trustee and that the temples (Sri Sri Tarini Thakurani and Sri Sri Biswanath Mahadev) sit on the same compound, the land constitutes part of the religious institution.

The Court rejected the argument that formal title in the ROR (Record of Rights) is a prerequisite for Section 68 jurisdiction, noting that neither Section 3(xiii) nor Section 68 mandates that the endowment be recorded in the deity's name to authorize the removal of unauthorized occupants.

It found that the Petitioners, having no independent right post the death of the original Pujaka, were in unauthorized occupation of a "religious institution" as defined by law.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Endowments and directed the Assistant Commissioner to proceed with the final adjudication of the remaining issues as previously remanded.

No order as to costs was made.