Orissa High Court
WP(C)/37029/2020 on 4 January, 2021
W.P.(C) No.37029 of 2020
02. 04.01.2021 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken
up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Miss Samapika Mishra, learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite
parties 1 to 3.
The petitioner in this writ petition prays for setting
aside the order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure-1) passed
by the Sub-Collector, Balasore in Mutation Appeal
No.05 of 2016, whereby he set aside the order passed by
the Tahasildar, Khaira passed in Mutation Case
No.1377 of 2013.
Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is a purchaser of the case
land from the rightful owner by virtue of registered sale
deed. After purchase, he filed Mutation Case No.1377 of
2013 before the Tahasildar, Khaira in which the R.O.R.
was corrected in his name. Assailing the same, the
opposite party no.4, namely, Niranjan Behera, filed
Mutation Appeal No.05 of 2016 before the Sub-
Collector, Balasore, who vide his order dated
30.08.2018 set aside the order passed by the
Tahasildar, Khaira in Mutation Case No.1377 of 2013
and directed to revert the land to its original Khata
No.180. The Sub-Collector, Balasore further directed the
Tahasildar, Khaira to follow the order to be passed by
the Civil Court in Civil Suit No.976 of 2013-1 pending in
the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
2
Balasore. It is his submission that the civil suit was
filed after the order in Mutation Case was passed in his
favour. Thus, pendency of the civil suit filed for partition
should not stand as a bar for recording of the case land
in his name. Thus, the vendor of the petitioner being
one of the co-sharers in the land involved in the
aforesaid civil suit, he will be bound by the judgment
and decree to be passed in the civil suit. But, the order
passed in Mutation Case No.1377 of 2013 should not
have been set aside for the reason that at the time when
the order in mutation case was passed, no civil suit was
pending. The Sub-Collector, Balasore failed to
appreciate the same and set aside the order illegally. As
the lawyer of the petitioner did not communicate the
impugned order under Annexure-1 to the petitioner,
there is a delay of two years in filling this writ petition.
Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order
and to direct the Tahasildar, Khaira to record the case
land in his name pursuant to the order passed in
Mutation Case No.1377 of 2013.
Miss Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel
for the State, on the other hand, submits that the writ
petition is hopelessly time barred. No sufficient cause
has been assigned for such inordinate delay. She
further submits that the petitioner has a statutory
remedy under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey &
Settlement Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') to assail the
impugned order under Annexure-1 by filing a revision.
It is her submission that the Sub-Collector, Balasore
3
has committed no error in setting aside the order
passed in the mutation case as the land in question is
admittedly a joint family property and the petitioner has
purchased the land from one of the co-sharers. When a
civil suit is pending, the Sub-Collector, Balasore has
rightly directed the Tahasildar, Khaira to restore the
land to the Original Khata No.180. Hence, she prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
Taking into consideration the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the contention raised by
learned counsel for the parties needs factual
adjudication with reference to the case records in
Mutation Case as well as Appeal, which can be
effectively decided by the revisional authority under
Section 32 of the Act. Hence, this Court without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
disposes of the writ petition with an observation that
the petitioner, if so advised, may move the revisional
authority under Section 32 of the Act for rederessal of
his grievances in challenging the order under Annexure-
1.
Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from
the website of this Court in the manner prescribed in
this Courts Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020 shall be
treated at par with the certified copy of this order.
................................
jm K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
