Orissa High Court
Panchali Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Another on 16 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 32211 of 2021
Panchali Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr.Dilip Kumar Mishra,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.12.2021
1. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail order dated
27th December, 2019 (Annexure-5) passed by the Tahasildar,
Talcher- Opposite Party No.2 in Mutation Case No.512 of 2010,
whereby he rejected the application for mutation filed by the
Petitioner.
3. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the land in question was leased out in favour of father of the
Petitioner. After the death of her father, the Petitioner filed
Mutation Case No.9902 of 2000 before Tahasildar, Talcher to
mutate the land in question in his name. But, the said mutatin
application was rejected. Thus, the Petitioner filed CS No.28 of
2001 before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talcher
seeking right, title and interest over the suit land, which was
decreed vide judgment dated 30th January, 2010 declaring the
right, title and interest in favour of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the
// 2 //
Petitioner filed Mutation Case No.512 of 2010 to get the land in
Hal Plot No.104(P) under Hal Khata No.1155 to an extent of
Ac.0.200 decimal in mouza Ghantapada in the district of Angul
(for short, 'the case land') mutated in her name. But, the said
Mutation Case was dismissed vide order dated 3rd February,
2015 (Annexure-2). Assailing the same, the Petitioner preferred
Mutation Appeal No.14 of 2015, which was allowed vide order
dated 4th May, 2016 (Annexure-4) and the matter was remitted
back to Tahasildar, Talcher for adjudication of the Mutation
Case No.512 of 2010 afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioner. However, Tahasildar, Talcher pursuant to the said
order under Annexure-4, dismissed the Mutation Case vide order
dated 27th December, 2019 (Annexure-5) with an observation
that the suit plot No.104(P) is in category 'B' of the master plan
area which is reserved for middle class people for which it
cannot be settled in favour of the Petitioner. It is further
observed that the Government in Revenue and Disaster
Management Department, vide letter No. RDM-CHS-CLRFIC-
0004-2018/16449/R & DM dated 7th May, 2018, intimated that
any application for mutation received through Single Widow
Operator (SWO) for mutation of the land where cause of action
arose prior to publication of ROR, should not be entertained.
Accordingly, the Petitioner was advised to file revision under
Section 15(b) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.
Assailing the same, this writ petition has been filed.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
Tahasildar, Talcher has not given any weightage to the judgment
and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in CS No.28 of
2001. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel placing reliance upon a
// 3 //
decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Mangala Pattnaik Vs.
State of Odisha, reported in 2001 (I) OLR 530 submitted that
the revenue authority should respect the judgment and decree
passed by Civil Courts. However, it is not clear from the
averments made in the writ petition as to when the final ROR in
respect of the case land was published. All these factual as well
as legal issues can be considered by the appellate authority
5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of
with an observation that the Petitioner if so advised may work
out her remedy under Rule 42 of the Odisha Survey and
Settlement Rules, 1962. If such an appeal is filed under Rule-42
within a period of two weeks hence along with certified copy of
this order, the appellate authority shall consider the same by
liberally construing delay in filing such appeal.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
