Basanti Behera And Another vs State Of Odisha And Another

Mr. Deo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, the land was purchased by her husband, since deceased. At the time of purchase there was no necessity for obtaining permission in prescribed form under inserted by amendment section 19-A in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. There was dispute between the wife and husband. It led to a suit filed and compromise decree, whereby the land was conveyed to the wife. The wife then wanting to sell the land had approached the Commission, for permission.

It appears from impugned judgment that inter alia, entry in the record was relied upon to refuse to permit the sale. The entry shows the land belonging to the deity marfat the widow.

Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner.

We observe that in event petitioners apply and are able to obtain correction in the record to show that the land came to petitioners by way of compromise in the suit from her husband, since deceased, who had duly purchased the land in year 1999, in that event petitioners may approach the Commissioner once again for permission. Upon change in the record the Commissioner will have new facts and circumstances to consider. If that happens, impugned order will not stand in the way for the Commissioner to consider petitioners’ application for issuance of permission in prescribed form, to sell the land in question. We make it clear that the administration must obtain satisfaction on facts, for correction, if any, to be made in the record.

Mr. Deo prays for return of original annexures 2 and 5 upon undertaking to file true copies thereof. Petitioners are permitted to have return of the original upon furnishing true copies.

The writ petition stands disposed of as above.

………………………………..