Gurudev Singh vs Additional Tahasildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 12956 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P.(C) NO. 37100 OF 2021
                 Gurudev Singh                          ....       Petitioner
                                         Mr. Bharat Kumr Mishra, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Additional Tahasildar, Rourkela and         ....   Opp. Parties
                 others

                                                  Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra,
                                           Additional Government Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             17.12.2021

   2.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction for early disposal of Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019 and to issue R.O.R. in his favour within a stipulated time.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that the father of the Petitioner, namely, late Madan Singh, had filed T.S. No. 33 of 1998 for declaration of right, title and interest over the land in question. The suit was decreed ex parte. Although the Collector, Sundargarh and Additional Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar were made parties to the suit, but they did not prefer any appeal within the statutory period. Subsequently, after the death of his father, the Petitioner filed Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019 to record the suit land in his name in terms of the ex parte decree passed in T.S. No. 33 of 1998. The Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar vide his order dated 22nd November, 2019 dropped the said mutation case in

// 2 //

view of the circular dated 10th September, 2018 issued by the Government of Odisha in Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Bhubaneswar. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 24813 of 2019, which was disposed of on 9th January, 2020 with a direction to the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar to consider and dispose of the Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019 afresh on its own merit in accordance with law keeping in mind the ex parte decree passed in T.S. No. 33 of 1998. However, in the meantime, the State of Odisha, represented through the Collector, Sundargarh as well as Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar filed RFA No. 5 of 2020 assailing the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 33 of 1998. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 8th April, 2021 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Rourkela. In spite of the same, the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar did not dispose of the Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019 for which the Petitioner had approached this Court again in W.P.(C) No. 22754 of 2021, which was disposed of on 9th August, 2021 granting liberty to the Petitioner to move the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar to dispose of the Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019 expeditiously giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

4. It is further submitted that although the Petitioner is pursuing the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar to dispose of the Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019 on the materials available on record, but he is deferring the matter on a flimsy ground that the clarification from the Law Department is sought for, which is awaited. It is his submission that the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar had also sought for clarification from the office of the

// 3 //

Collector & District Magistrate, Sundargarh vide his letter dated 24th September, 2021. In response to the same, the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh vide his letter dated 27th October, 2021 (Annexure-5) has already instructed the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar to dispose of the Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019 expeditiously giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned taking into consideration the previous Government guidelines in compliance to the order dated 9th August, 2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 22754 of 2021. But the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar is bent upon not to dispose of the Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019, which is still subjudice.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instruction, submits that the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar has sought for clarification from the Law Department, which is still awaited. However, he cannot keep the matter pending awaiting clarification/instruction from the Law Department in view of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in T.S. No. 33 of 1998 and should take a decision on the materials available on record at an early date.

6. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court expressing its displeasure in the manner the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar is proceeding with the Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019 and taking a lenient view, directs the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar-Opposite Party No.2 to entertain and dispose of the Mutation Case No.298 of 2019 by passing a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order taking into consideration the materials

// 4 //

available on record. Non-compliance of this order shall be treated to be contempt of this Court.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to produce the certified copy of this order before the Tahasildar, Rourkela at Uditnagar-Opposite Party No.2 on 3rd January, 2022 and participate in the proceeding in Mutation Case No. 298 of 2019.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge bks