Can Marfatdars Alienate Public Deity Land Without Prior Permission Under the Odisha Endowments Act?

Orissa High Court reaffirms that unregistered transfers by Marfatdars of public deity property without Section 19(1) sanction are void and consolidation authorities lack jurisdiction to record such alienations, creating binding precedent for subordinate courts.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name WP(C)/3020/2024 of NIRANJAN BARIK Vs SRI JAMBESWAR MAHADEV BIJE, JAMARA, KENDRAPARA; CNR ODHC010075242024
Date of Registration 08-02-2024
Decision Date 26-08-2025
Disposal Nature Disposed Off
Judgment Author MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Court Orissa High Court
Bench Single Judge (A.C. Behera, J.)
Precedent Value Binding on subordinate courts; affirms existing law
Overrules / Affirms Affirms
Type of Law Land consolidation; religious endowment; constitutional writ
Questions of Law
  • Is Sri Jambeswar Mahadev a public or private deity?
  • Is an unregistered Chirastaye Patta by Marfatdars valid?
  • Was recording land in petitioner’s name valid?
  • Is the revision setting aside consolidation entries sustainable?
Ratio Decidendi The deity is a public institution whose land cannot be alienated without prior permission under Section 19(1) of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. Marfatdars lack authority to transfer deity property in contravention of that provision. An unregistered lease for more than one year is void under Sections 107 and 117 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 17 of the Registration Act. Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction over Bebandabasta land settled only under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act. Consequently, the revisional court correctly quashed the earlier consolidation order.
Judgments Relied Upon
  • Chintamani Sahoo v. Commissioner, OHEA, Orissa: 56 (1983) CLT 47 (D.B.)
  • Padma Charan Sahu v. Khageswar Patra: 2024 (2) OLR 808
  • Sairendri Devi v. Kamuna @ Kamrunisha: 2018 (1) CLR 1228
  • Smt. Bimala Kabi Satapathy v. Collector, Khurda: 2014 (1) OLR 602 (D.B.)
  • Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatpur v. State of Orissa: 110 (2010) CLT 574
  • Deben Sethi v. State of Orissa: 2012 (Supp. 1) OLR 656
  • Samir Mukherjee v. Davinder K. Bajaj: AIR 2001 SC 1696
  • Shri Janki Devi Bhagat Trust v. Ram Swarup Jain: AIR 1995 SC 2482
  • State of Orissa v. Harapriya Bisoi: 2009 (II) OLR(SC) 229 (D.B.)
  • Bijay Ketan Brahma v. State of Orissa: 108 (2009) CLT 657
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court
  • Definitions from revenue lexicon and Law Lexicon to classify “public deity”
  • Section 19(1), Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951
  • Sections 107 & 117, Transfer of Property Act 1882; Section 17, Registration Act 1908
  • Jurisdiction limits under Orissa Estate Abolition Act and consolidation law
  • Revisional powers under Section 37, OCH & PFL Act, 1972
Facts as Summarised by the Court The deity’s land (Ac.0.260 dec.) was recorded in Sabik Khata 521 under Marfatdars. In 1960, two Marfatdars executed an unregistered permanent lease (Chirastaye Patta) in favour of the petitioner’s father. Consolidation operations recorded the petitioner’s title after objections by villagers were rejected. In 2020, deity representatives filed a revision and the Additional Commissioner allowed it on the ground that alienation was void. The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226/227.
Citations WP(C) No.3020/2024; CNR ODHC010075242024; Orissa High Court; dated 26-08-2025 (non-reported)

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts in Odisha High Court jurisdiction
Follows
  • Chintamani Sahoo v. Commissioner, OHEA
  • Padma Charan Sahu v. Khageswar Patra
  • Bijay Ketan Brahma v. State of Orissa

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Confirms that a deity indexed as a public institution (214-J.C.(M)) cannot alienate land without prior Section 19(1) sanction.
  • Declares unregistered Chirastaye Patta for a term exceeding one year void under Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act.
  • Reinforces that Marfatdars lack power to alienate deity property absent statutory permission.
  • Affirms that consolidation authorities cannot settle Bebandabasta land governed by the Orissa Estate Abolition Act.
  • Validates revisional jurisdiction under Section 37, OCH & PFL Act, 1972, despite decades-long delay where earlier orders are inherently void.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. Public Deity Status: Sabik RoR and revenue lexicon definitions establish Sri Jambeswar Mahadev Bije as a public deity.
  2. Statutory Bar on Alienation: Section 19(1) OHEA Act mandates prior permission for transfers; unregistered permanent lease violates this.
  3. Invalidity of Marfatdar Transfer: Marfatdars have no power to alienate; unregistered lease also void under Sections 107/117 of T.P. Act and Section 17 of Registration Act.
  4. Jurisdictional Limits of Consolidation: Bebandabasta land is settled only under OEA Act; consolidation authorities must respect OEA orders and lack power to record private transfers.
  5. Revisional Authority’s Role: Section 37, OCH & PFL Act confers unlimited revisional jurisdiction to correct inherently void orders, especially to protect perpetual minor (deity).

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Niranjan Barik)

  • The 1960 unregistered Chirastaye Patta conferred valid title and possession.
  • Consolidation officer lawfully recorded land in his name after objections were rejected.
  • Delay of 29 years bars revisional interference.

Opposite Parties (Deity Representatives & State)

  • Sri Jambeswar Mahadev is a public deity; its land cannot be alienated without Section 19(1) permission.
  • The unregistered lease is void; consolidation authority had no jurisdiction over Bebandabasta land.
  • Section 37 revision is maintainable despite delay where earlier order is void ab initio.

Factual Background

The petitioner’s father obtained an unregistered permanent lease (Chirastaye Patta) in 1960 from two of the deity’s Marfatdars over Ac.0.260 decimals of deity land. During consolidation (1983–1986), objections by a villager were rejected and the consolidation RoR recorded the land in the petitioner’s name. In 2020, deity representatives filed a revision under Section 37 of the OCH & PFL Act, and the Additional Commissioner allowed it on grounds of void alienation. The petitioner challenged that order by way of writ petition under Articles 226/227.

Statutory Analysis

Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951

  • Section 19(1): Prior sanction required for alienation of endowment property; mandatory and voids unauthorized transfers.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 & Registration Act, 1908

  • Sections 107/117 T.P. Act & Section 17 Registration Act: Leases exceeding one year or conveyances over ₹100 must be registered or are void.

OCH & PFL Act, 1972

  • Section 9(2)/(3)/(15): Consolidation operation and objections.
  • Section 37: Revisional power with no prescribed time limit to correct void orders.

Orissa Estate Abolition Act

  • Settlement of Bebandabasta land lies exclusively with OEA Tribunal; consolidation authorities must follow OEA orders.

Alert Indicators

  • ✓ Precedent Followed – Existing law on alienation of deity property and consolidation jurisdiction affirmed.

Citations

WP(C) No.3020/2024; CNR ODHC010075242024; Orissa High Court; Judgment dated 26 August 2025 (non-reported).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.