Registered Sale Deeds Pursuant to Statutory Auction Processes Cannot be Recalled Through Writ Jurisdiction.

The Deity, Sri Raghunath Mahapravu, through its Managing Trustee, filed an application under Section 19 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, seeking permission to alienate its properties

The Commissioner of Endowments dismissed the application (OA No. 205 of 2011) on November 22, 2017, finding no legal necessity for the sale

The Deity appealed under Section 19(4), resulting in the Appellate Authority setting aside the Commissioner's order on September 4, 2019, and directing an auction

Consequently, the land was sold to Opposite Party No. 4 via a registered sale deed dated December 21, 2020

The Petitioners, representing the Hindu public, challenged the appellate order and the subsequent sale deed, alleging procedural irregularities and lack of market value assessment

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for challenging a registered sale deed executed pursuant to an order under the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act

2. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in law by permitting the alienation of deity land despite findings regarding irregularities and lack of legal necessity

Section 19 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, regarding the alienation of religious property, and Rule 4(2) of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959, which dictates the procedure for auctions

K. Arjun Das v. Commissioner of Endowments (2019) 10 SCC 355, which establishes that a registered sale deed involves valuable civil rights and cannot be nullified through a writ petition if the petitioners have no direct stake and an alternative remedy of a civil suit is available

The Court observed that while the Commissioner of Endowments originally found no legal necessity for the sale, the Appellate Authority exercised its discretion based on reports indicating the temple needed repairs and the land was unproductive

Regarding the Petitioners' claim that Rule 4(2) was violated during the auction, the Court noted a total lack of documentary evidence to support such a contention

Applying the ratio of K. Arjun Das, the Court determined that the Petitioners—acting as "persons interested" without a personal stake—were attempting to use an "indirect method" (writ jurisdiction) to unsettle a completed transaction

The Court reasoned that since a registered sale deed had already been executed in favor of the auction purchaser, creating a civil right, the proper forum for adjudication of factual errors or procedural lapses is a "properly constituted Suit" rather than the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction

The writ petition was dismissed without costs. However, the Court clarified that this dismissal does not bar the Petitioners from pursuing any other legal remedies, such as a civil suit, to challenge the validity of the sale deed