Public Access for Darshan Is Not Conclusive Proof of the Public Nature of an Endowment

The Petitioners, acting as marfatdars (managers) of the deity Sri Raghunath Jew, filed an application under Section 19-A of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, seeking a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to alienate certain immovable properties.

They contended the deity is a private religious institution and the sale was necessary to fund temple repairs and daily rituals (Sevapuja).

The Inspector of Endowments reported that while the public has access for darshan, the management remains strictly with the Petitioners' family and the deity is not indexed as a public trust.

Despite no public objections, the Commissioner of Endowments rejected the application, doubting the private nature of the deity due to public access and questioning the non-joinder of female legal heirs.

The Petitioners challenged this rejection before the High Court of Orissa.

Section 19-A of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, and Rule 4-A of the 1959 Rules mandate that the Commissioner grant an NOC if prima facie satisfied the institution is not public.

The principle from Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (AIR 1981 SC 798) establishes that public access for darshan or offerings does not conclusively prove a public trust if control remains with the founder's descendants.

Per Tamala Das v. State of Odisha (2023 (II) CLR 310), in the absence of objections, the exercise of taking a detailed prima facie view against the private status becomes largely unnecessary.

Sri Antaryami Dash v. State of Odisha (2016 (II) ILR-CUT-1021) regarding the Commissioner’s duty to ensure alienation benefits the deity.

The Court reasoned that the Commissioner erred by conflating public access with public ownership. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Bench noted that for an endowment to be public, there must be evidence of dedication to the public as of right, rather than mere permissive entry for worship.

Since the Inspector’s report confirmed the Petitioners' family manages the deity and it remains unindexed, the institution is prima facie private.

The Court found that under Rule 4-A, since no objections were received, the Commissioner should have focused on whether the alienation was for the deity's benefit rather than challenging its private status.

The Court also observed that the Commissioner failed to investigate material facts, such as whether the property yielded income or if the temple was indeed in a dilapidated state requiring funds.

The matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Endowments for fresh adjudication to ascertain the necessity of alienation for the deity's benefit, with liberty granted to the Petitioners to amend their pleadings.