Orissa High Court
W.P.(C) vs Unknown on 6 January, 2021
1 No. 37430 of 2020
W.P.(C)
2. 06.01.2021 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken
up through Videoconferencing.
2. Heard Mr.Somdarshan Mohanty, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr.Satya Sundar Kanungo,
learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite
party Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Petitioners in this writ petition seek for a direction
to quash the proceeding of Mutation Case No.50 of 2020
initiated by opposite party Nos.3 to 14, which is pending
before the Tahasildar, Paikmal (OP No.2).
4. Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that opposite party No.12 as plaintiff along with
others filed CS No.12 of 2006 for declaration of their
right, title and interest in respect of the case land which
was decreed in her favour vide judgment dated
30.04.2011. Assailing the same, the petitioners, who
were defendant Nos. 2 and 2(a) have filed RFA No.122 of
2011 before this Court, which is pending for
adjudication. This Court has also vide order dated
08.05.2014 passed in Misc. Case No.75 of 2014 arising
out of the aforesaid RFA, directed the parties to
maintain status quo, so far as construction over the suit
land is concerned. It was further directed that the
respondents therein were also restrained from
alienating any portion of the suit property and not to
create any 3rd party interest till the next date. The said
2
order is still in force till today. However, opposite party
No.12 in utter disregard to the said interim direction,
sold the land to different persons and opposite party
Nos. 3 to 11 who have initiated different mutation cases
for mutation of the land they have purchased. The
opposite parties 3 to 11 have initiated Mutation Case
No.50 of 2020, which is pending before the Tahasildar,
Paikmal (OP No.2). The petitioners have been served
with notice and they have already entered appearance
in the said case. It is his submission that during
pendency of the 1st Appeal, i.e., RFA No.122 of 2011,
initiation of a mutation proceeding filed by the lis
pendens purchaser is not maintainable, but the
Tahasildar, Paikmal is proceeding with the matter to
mutate the case land, who has no jurisdiction to
entertain the mutation proceeding. Hence, the writ
petition has been filed with the aforesaid relief.
5. Mr.Kanungo, learned AGA, on the other hand,
submits that the case record reveals that although the
petitioners have entered appearance, but have not yet
filed their objection. It is open for them to file a detailed
objection, which can be considered by the Tahasildar,
Paikmal while adjudicating the Mutation Case No.50 of
2020. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
6. Taking into consideration the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
3
considered opinion that when the parties have already
entered appearance before the opposite party No.2-
Tahasildar, Paikmal in Mutation Case No.50 of 2020,
the petitioners can file detailed objection bringing notice
of the authority about pendency of RFANo.122 of 2011
and interim order passed therein.
6.1 In the event, such an objection is filed within a
period of two weeks hence along with an authenticated
copy of this order, Tahasildar, Paikmal (OP No.2) shall
do well to consider the same in accordance with law
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned
and shall make an endeavour for early disposal of the
Mutation Case, as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of four months from the date of filing of
objection. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on merits of either party.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
writ petition is disposed of.
7.1 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
