The Orissa High Court recently dismissed a 50-year-old claim of a man over temple land, observing that the marfatdar, trustee of the temple, had no right to sell the property of public deities without statutory permission in the Anandpur village deity property dispute case.
Justice A C Behera was hearing the second appeal filed by one Ankura Charana Sahoo, claiming the ownership of temple land based on a 1967 sale deed executed by the then-marfatdar, Mahendra Nath Dutta, of the temple of the deities Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura Bije.
Justice A C Behera noted that Sahoo was claiming the ownership of temple land based on a 1967 sale deed. (Image is enhanced using AI)
“Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura are the village deities of village Anandapur, and they are the public deities. Then, at this juncture, without permission of the Endowment Commissioner…, the Marfatdar of the said deities, i.e., Mahendra Nath Dutta, had no right to alienate the suit property,” the Orissa High Court said in its February 20 order.
‘Public deities, invalid sale deed’
Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura are the village deities of village Anandapur under Dhamnagar Tahasil, and not the private family deities of the marfatdar (trustee) Mahendra Nath Dutta.
When the deities Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura Bije are the public deities, Mahendra Nath Dutta represented the deities as Marfatdar on behalf of the villagers and had no alienable right in the said properties since the same belong to the deities only.
When one of the co-owners of the said properties, i.e., deity Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura, is a stranger to the sale agreement, and the said sale deed has been executed without obtaining permission from the endowment commissioner, Sahoo has no legal entitlement over the said properties.
The deities Shri Rasika Ray Thakura, Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura and Sukadevi Balika Ucha Vidyalaya have not been added as parties, and no notice has been given by the trial court to the endowment commissioner as per the relevant laws.
There is no merit in the second appeal filed since the major parties -the deity Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura, as well as Sukadevi Balika Ucha Vidyalaya, were not added as parties in the suit.
‘Temple land, gift deed’
It was claimed that the deities Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura Bije, of Anandpur village, were the family deities of Shri Mahendra Nath Dutta.
The trustee (Marfatdar) of the said properties was Mahendra Nath Dutta, who sold the said properties to Bhikari Charan Sahoo, the father of Ankura Charana Sahoo, in 1967, indicating his status as Sebayata (traditional servitors) of the deities for the maintenance of the temple of the deities.
Once the purchase was done, it was claimed that Sahoo’s father was the exclusive owner and had possession of the said properties and paid the rents for the same to the government through valid rent receipts.
After Sahoo’s father’s death, he was allegedly the sole successor and was the exclusive owner with possession of the said properties.
It was claimed by Sahoo that the said properties were erroneously recorded in the name of the deities Shri Rasika Ray Thakura and Shri Laxmijanardan Thakura Bije, indicating the name of Mahendra Nath Dutta as marfatdar during the major settlement operation.
Subsequently, Sarat Chandra Majhi got the temple properties as a deed gift sanctioned by the legal heirs of the trustee Dutta and established a girls’ high school in the village of Anandapur, namely as Sukadevi Balika Ucha Vidyalaya.
Sahoo claimed that the gift deed was illegal since it was done by the legal heirs of Dutta without obtaining the required permission under law from the Commissioner of Endowment.
The trial court, in its 2019 order, said that Sahoo is entitled to the declaration of his right, title and interest over the said properties in his favour and issued a permanent injunction against Manji and the legal heirs of Duttato restraining them permanently from entering into the temple properties.
Aggrieved by this order, Manjhi filed an appeal challenging this order, in which the appellate court set aside the trial court’s order.
Subsequently, Sahoo challenged this appellate court’s order in this second appeal before the high court.
Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Expertise
Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.
Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:
Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.
Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More
Justice A C Behera noted that Sahoo was claiming the ownership of temple land based on a 1967 sale deed. (Image is enhanced using AI)