WP(C)/1283/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 1491 Ori

                          W.P.(C) No. 1283 of 2021




02. 05.02.2021          Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is
                 taken up through Videoconferencing.
                 2.     Heard Mr.Anirudha Das, learned counsel for the
                 petitioner and Mr.Amiya Kumar Mishra, learned Additional
                 Government Advocate for the State opposite parties.
                 2.      Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to challenge
                 the order dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure3) passed by the
                 Tahasildar, Kandhamal in Mutation Case No.546 of 2019,
                 whereby he dropped the said Mutation Case on the ground
                 of pendency of CS No.34 of 2019 (Annexure-5) before
                 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phulbani.
                 4.      Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
                 that one Narayan Choudhury had filed CS No.14 of 2008
                 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phulbani against
                 the vender of the petitioner and another for declaration of
                 right, title and interest over the land in question, which
                 was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26th April,
                 2011 and 11.05.2011 respectively. Suppressing the same,
                 the said Narayan Choudhury along with others filed CS
                 No.34 of 2019 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior
                 Division), Phulbani seeking the self-same relief, which is
                 pending. It is his submission that subsequent Civil Suit,
                 i.e., CS No.34 of 2019 filed with the self-same prayer as
                 that of CS No.14 of 2008 is not maintainable. The
                 Tahasildar, Kandhamal, without considering the same,
                 most illegally dropped the Mutation Case No.546 of 2019
                                  2




     holding that the mutation proceeding is not maintainable
     during pendency of the Civil proceeding.
     5.       In course of hearing, Mr.Das, learned counsel for
     the petitioner submits that the petitioner has a remedy
     either to file a petitioner under Rule-43 of the Odisha
     Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 against the impugned
     order or to file an appeal under Rule-42 of the said Rules,
     1962. He, therefore, prays for withdrawal of the writ
     petition to avail statutory remedy, as aforesaid.
     6.       Granting such liberty, the writ petition is disposed
     of as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that this Court
     has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case of
     the petitioner.
     6.1      Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from
     the website of this Court shall be treated at par with
     certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court's
     Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.


                                     ................................
                                     K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.

ss