Raghunath Mishra (since dead) represented through LRs V. Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and Sub-Collector and Executive Officer, Nayagarh

WP(C)/12092/2012

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Raghunath Mishra, who passed away during the proceedings, seeking the execution of a sale deed for a piece of land belonging to the deity Shri Jagannath Jew. Initially, Raghunath Mishra had deposited a consideration amount in 1984 for the land but due to various administrative delays and his subsequent death, the sale deed was not executed. His legal heirs continued the petition, arguing that the delay was not their fault and citing previous legal precedents. The opposing parties, including the Commissioner of Endowments and the Executive Officer, argued that the delay was due to the petitioner's inaction. The Court, considering the circumstances and the interests of the deity, offered a resolution that allowed the petitioners to purchase the land at current market value, thus balancing the interests of all parties involved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834869 (HC-ODISHA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Residents Welfare Association, Noida vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2009) 14 SCC 716, S.P. Padmavati v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. AIR 1997 Mad 296, Amita Rout vrs. Orissa State Housing Board and others (W.P.(C). No.8942 of 2021 disposed of on 31st March, 2021)
• Laws Referred To: Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, Right to Information Act, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GOPINATH MISHRA; AMIT NATH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSANTA DASH; PALLAVI MOHANTY
• Keywords: Endowments; Legal heirs; Sale deed; Writ petition; Execution of Sale Deed
• Section: 19; 226; 227; 19(4)

Judgement Text

" W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 Page 1 of 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) ***** Raghunath Mishra (since dead) represented through LRs …… Petitioners -Versus- Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and another .…… Opp. Parties Advocates appeared: For Petitioners : Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Senior Advocate being assisted by Ms. Pallavi Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.2) Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, Advocate (For Commissioner of Endowments) CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ------------------------------------------------ Heard and disposed of on 02.02.2026 ---------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT By the Bench; 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. One Raghunath Mishra has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction to the Sub-Collector and Executive Officer, Nayagarh, Debottar in the district of Nayagarh-Opposite Party No.2 to execute the sale deed in respect of the land of the deity Shri Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 Jagannath Jew, Nayagarh pertaining to Pot No.265/20 of Khata No.188 to an extent of Ac.0.04 decimals out of Ac.0.90 decimals corresponding to Hal Plot No.124 of Hal Khata No.77 of village Jamusahi in the district of Nayagarh (for brevity ‘the Case Land’) in his favour. During pendency of the writ petition said Sri. Raghunath Mishra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Petitioner’) died. Hence, his Legal Heirs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the substituted Petitioners’) being substituted, are pursuing this writ petition. 3. Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the substituted Petitioners submits that the order passed in OA No.179 of 1981 under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments, Act, 1951 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was challenged before the State Government under Section 19 (4) of the Act. The State Government vide order dated 4th February, 1984 enhanced the consideration amount to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for alienation of the Case Land. The Case Land is a part and parcel of a bigger plot. The Petitioner intended to purchase the Case Land and accordingly, deposited Rs.6000/- towards consideration money pursuant to Letter No.387 dated 21st July, 1984 (Annexure-1) issued by the Executive Officer, Debottars, Nayagarh. On receipt of the consideration amount, the Petitioner was communicated vide Letter No.433 dated 7th August, 1984 (Annexure-3) to get the sale deed executed at his cost by 27th August, 1984 and the registration fee was assessed at RS.781.50/-. On receipt of the said letter, the Petitioner requested the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 to execute the sale deed in the name of his wife, namely, Premalata Mishra-substituted Petitioner No.1(a). Although the request of the Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 Petitioner was accepted but, no step was taken to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife. Hence, the Petitioner vide his letter dated 29th December, 1993, (Annexure-4), requested Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 to execute the sale deed in his name. The said letter was also not paid any heed. 4. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the period in which, the sale deed was required to be executed as per the direction of the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar expired. Thus, an application was filed by the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 to extend the period provided for execution of the sale deed. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 21st July, 2004 by the Commissioner of Endowments. Although the Petitioner and his wife were parties to the said petition for extension of time, but no notice was served on them. Thus, the Petitioner remained in dark about the developments. However, from the order dated 21st July, 2004, it was apparent that the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 being conscious of the fact that said Raghunath Mishra had requested to execute the sale deed in favour of his wife, namely, Premalata Mishra and the request was acceded to by the Executive Officer, made such application for extension of time. Had the Petitioner been noticed, he could have demonstrated his bona fide willingness and readiness for execution of the sale deed. The Petitioner remained under an impression that his request was being considered. Accordingly, he wrote letter dated 30th July, 2007 (Annexure-5) by registered post intimating Opposite Party No.2 about his grievances and prayed for execution of the sale deed. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 While rejecting the application for extension of the period, the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, however, permitted the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 to file a fresh application under Section 19 of the Act for alienation of the Case Land. Accordingly, a fresh application under Section 19 of the Act being OA No.181 of 2008 was filed seeking permission to sale the Case Land. Awaiting decision in OA No.181 of 2008, the Petitioner went on requesting the Executive Officer and lastly on 10th January, 2010 (Annexure-7) the Petitioner requested to consider his prayer for execution of the sale deed. The said letter was also not responded to. Hence, the Petitioner obtained the copies of Annexures 1 to 7 under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 on 28th February, 2012 and filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 5. Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate, therefore, submits that neither the Petitioner nor his LRs, who are the substituted Petitioners, are at fault in complying with the direction under Annexure-3. Due to inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 and the reasons stated above, the sale deed could not be executed till date. He, therefore, prays for a direction to the Executive Officer of the deity Shri Jaganath Jew, Nayagarh-Opposite Party No.2 to execute the sale deed in respect of the Case Land in favour of the substituted Petitioners. In support of his submission Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the case of Residents Welfare Association, Noida vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 716, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 54, 55 and 56 laid down the law as under: Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 “54. Having decided the aforesaid questions raised in this case, we now proceed to deal with the question as to the date of determination of the consideration mentioned in the document. The respondents contended that the consideration mentioned should be the market value of the property on the date of execution of the deed and not on the date when the agreement to sell the land was executed. The appellants on the contrary argued that the relevant date in order to calculate the consideration would be the market value on the date when the agreement to transfer the land was entered and registered. 55. We have heard the argument of the parties and referred to various cases dealing with this matter. In this regard, we would like to observe that on the various facts and circumstances of a particular case. In situations where the delay is caused on the part of a party there cannot be a straightjacket formula devised for determining the same. It would depend intentionally while executing a deed after entering into an agreement of sale or lease as the case may be, the market value should be determined on the date when the deed is executed and not when an agreement to sale the property or lease the property had been registered. But in cases where a person is not at fault and the delay is caused due to the lessor as in this case, the market value should be determined on the date when the agreement to lease the property was entered. The lessee or the sub lessee should not suffer due to the inability of the lessor in handing over transfer memorandums as is required under the lease. 56. For this, a reference can be made to the case of S.P. Padmavati v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. AIR 1997 Mad 296, which is similar to the present case and to which we are in respectful agreement where the property could not be registered due to no fault of the transferee and where the consideration was frozen earlier, as in the current case. The Madras High Court held that the relevant date for calculation of market value and the stamp duty is the date on which the consideration was frozen.” (emphasis supplied) 6. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner was not at fault as he had deposited the sale consideration with the Executive Officer in the year 1984. Hence, he prays for execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the substituted Petitioners on the consideration amount already deposited. He also relied upon the Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 case of Amita Rout vrs. Orissa State Housing Board and others (W.P.(C). No.8942 of 2021 disposed of on 31st March, 2021), in which this Court relying upon certain case laws of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Section 43(C) A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directed to register the instruments on the face value of the lease- cum-sale deed. Thus, the sale deed should be executed in the name of the substituted Petitioners, as the Petitioner has already expired during pendency of the writ petition. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2- Executive Officer vehemently objects to the submission made by Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. It is submitted that it is the Petitioner, who was at fault for which, the sale deed could not be executed in his favour within the stipulated period as directed by learned Commissioner of Endowments. All other persons, who had deposited the consideration money along with the Petitioner, got the sale deed executed by approaching the Registering Authority and depositing the registration fee. But, the Petitioner did not show any interest in getting the sale deed executed and registered by depositing the registration fee with the Registering Authority. Although it is submitted that the Petitioner requested the Executive Officer to execute the sale deed in the name of his wife, namely, Premalata Mishra-substituted Petitioner No.1(a), but there is no document available in the case record in support of such submission. However, the order rejecting the permission for extension of time reflects the name of Premalata Mishra-substituted Petitioner No.1(a). Be that as it may, the Petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale deed within one Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 7 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 month as stipulated under Annexure-3. Thus, the ratio in the case Residents Welfare Association (supra) is of no assistance to the substituted Petitioners. He further submitted that the Petitioner was aware of the order rejecting the extension of time granted under Section 19 of the Act for execution of the sale deed. But the said order dated 21st July, 2004 was never challenged and attained its finality. He further submitted that deity, being a perpetual minor, its interest is paramount. If the sale deed is executed at the consideration amount fixed in the year 1984, it will be prejudicial to the interest of the deity. It is further submitted that OA No.181 of 2008 filed under Section 19 of the Act pursuant to order dated 21st July, 2004 has already ben dismissed for non-prosecution on 2nd August, 2011. He, however, submits that if the substituted Petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the present market value of the case land, the Executive Officer has no objection in executing the sale deed in their names. 8. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar submits that pursuant to the permission granted under Section 19 of the Act in OA No.179/1981 all other persons except the Petitioner got the sale deed executed in time. Only the Case Land could not be alienated due to non-cooperation of the Petitioner. The land is still lying vacant. Thus, it would be in the best interest of the deity to alienate the Case Land to the substituted Petitioners at the present market value. If the substituted Petitioners are interested to purchase the same, this Court may consider the prayer and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 8 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 9. Taking note of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that pursuant to the letter dated 17th August, 1984 under Annexure-3, the Petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale deed although by then, he had already deposited the consideration amount of Rs.6000/-. The Petitioner did not show any interest to execute the sale deed by depositing the registration fee of Rs.781.50/- with the Registering Authority. Thus, the sale deed could not be executed in his favour. Certain materials are available in case record to show that the Petitioner had requested to execute the sale deed in the name of his wife namely, Premalata Mishra-substituted Petitioner No.1(a). But, there is no document available on record as to when such request was made. It is not known as to whether the Petitioner made such request within the stipulated period for execution of the sale deed as permitted by learned Commissioner or not. In view of the above, it is very difficult to accept the submission made by Mr. Dash, learned Senior advocate appearing for the substituted Petitioners that the Petitioner had requested to execute the sale deed in the name of his wife, namely, Premalata Mishra-substituted Petitioner No.1(a) within the stipulated period as granted by the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 19 of the Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not at fault in executing the sale deed on payment of the consideration amount as well as by depositing registration fee with the Registering Authority for registration of the sale deed. Thus, the ratio in the case of Residents Welfare Association (supra) is of no assistance to the Petitioners. The case law in Amita Rout (supra) has no application Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 9 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 to the case at hand, as the lease deed in the said case had already been executed on payment of the amount. But, it could not be registered due to inaction on the part of Odisha State Housing Board Corporation. 10. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate that the Petitioners are interested to purchase the Case Land at the present market value, to which Mr. Mishra learned counsel for Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 and Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar do not have any objection. 11. In view of the above, this Court, without resorting to the technicalities, directs that in the event, the substituted Petitioners make an application to the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 expressing their willingness to purchase the Case Land at the present market price by 16th February, 2026, the Executive Officer- Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to communicate them the present market price and the differential amount excluding the amount of Rs. 6000/- already paid by the Petitioner shall be deposited by them for execution of the sale deed by 2nd March, 2026. On such deposit being made as communicated by the Executive Officer-Opposite Party No.2 by 16th March, 2026, the Executive Officer- Opposite Party No.2 shall take steps to execute the sale deed and register the same in their names. Of course, the substituted Petitioners shall have to bear the cost of registration. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified Page 10 of 10 W.P.(C). NO.12092 OF 2012 13. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge (S.K. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 2nd Day of February, 2026///Rojalin/// Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Feb-2026 10:26:37 Signature Not Verified "