AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and draws attention to order dated 27th March, 2023. Said order was passed on Mr. Choudhury having had moved the writ petition. We reproduce the order in its entirety.
“1. Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is letter dated 11th November, 2022 written by Assistant Commissioner to the Land Acquisition Officer. He submits, restrictions have been imposed regarding payment and utilization of compensation money in respect of land belonging to private ‘Matha’. There is no dispute regarding character of the ‘Matha’ being private. He hands up and relies on circular dated 21st October, 2003 issued to all Collectors and Special Land Acquisition Officers. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 from the circular are reproduce below.
“3. However, Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa has no control over the Institutions and no authority to nominate any person to receive the compensation amount in respect of Institutions which are declared as private by the Asst. Commissioner/Addl. Asst. Commissioner of Endowments to be private as per provision of Section 41 of OHRE Act, 1951 and the said declaration has received finality.
It is, therefore, requested that before making payment of compensation to the persons other than authorized by the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa due care should be taken by the L.A.O. to see that the deity property and money are declared as private as per provision of section 41 of OHRE Act, 1951 and the said declaration has received finality.
The above instruction should be scrupulously followed while making payment of L.A. compensation in respect of lands belonging to Hindu Religious institutions.”
He then relies on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in H.R.E. Commissioner v. Kanak Durga reported in AIR 1958 Orissa 183, inter alia, paragraph-14 wherein it was said, petitioner therein had succeeded in obtaining declaration that the institution as private one and as such, the Orissa Act IV of 1939 has no application to his institution and that he is not liable to pay any contribution to the Commissioner.
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. Mr. Nath, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and submits, he will take service. He prays for adjournment to obtain instruction.
We notice there has been disclosed letter dated 9th January, 1969 written by then Additional Assistant Commissioner to the Compensation Officer. We reproduce below text of the letter.
“With reference to the subject noted above I am to say that the above institution has been declared as private and as such compensation amount may be paid to the Marfatdar Sri Gopinath Das.”
List on 5th April, 2023.”
Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Commissioner and has not been able to demonstrate that impugned letter dated 11th November, 2022 is founded on a provision of or judgment law.
Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State.
Impugned letter is set aside and quashed.
Mr. Choudhury prays for release of the amount. Consequences of setting aside impugned letter are to follow.
The writ petition is disposed of.
…………………………….