Public deities v. trustee: Why Orissa High Court rejected 50-year-old claim over Anandpur temple land

‘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.