Orissa High Court
WP(C)/15105/2018 on 19 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.15105 of 2018
04. 19.03.2021 Heard Mr. Dwarika Prasad Mohanty, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath,
learned counsel for the opposite party nos.3 to 9 and Mr.
Dillip Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State-opposite party nos.1 and 2.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order
dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-
Collector, Champua in Mutation Appeal No.5 of 2014 as
well as order dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure-2) passed by
the Tahasildar, Champua in Mutation Case No.4 of 2002-
03.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the predecessor of the opposite party nos.3
to 8, namely, Padma Charan Mahanta and opposite party
no.9, namely, Sadananda Mahanta had filed Mutation
Case No.4 of 2002-03 before the Tahasildar, Champua to
record the land in question in their favour on the basis of
judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Champua in T.S. No.29 of 2001. The
petitioners are the villagers of Odangapal under
Champua Tahasil in the district of Keonjhar. The land in
question is a piece of Government land. T.S. No.29 of
2001 was filed claiming right, title and interest and
possession over the land in question, which was decreed
in favour of the plaintiffs. Basing upon the same, they
filed Mutation Case No.4 of 2002-03, which was allowed
relying upon the report of the concerned Amin as well as
2
Revenue Inspector. Assailing the same, the villagers of
Odangapal (the present petitioners) preferred Mutation
Appeal Case No.5 of 2014. It is the submission of Mr.
Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners that
although the Sub-Collector, Champua has recorded
findings in favour of the villagers-petitioners, but
ultimately without setting aside the order of Mutation
Case No.4 of 2002-03, advised the Additional Tahasildar,
Champua to prefer an appeal assailing the judgment and
decree passed in T.S. No.29 of 2001 observing the official
formalities. Being aggrieved by such order, the
petitioners-villagers have filed this writ petition.
4. It is further submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned
counsel for the petitioners that from the decree passed in
T.S. No.29 of 2001, it is not clear as to whether the land
in question, i.e. Plot Nos.479/681 and Plot No.555/743
under Khata No.67/13 (original Khata No.32) of Mouza-
Odangapat was directed to be recorded in the name of the
plaintiffs therein or not. The Sub-Collector, Champua
also found several discrepancies in the report of the
concerned Amin as well as Revenue Inspector. He also
recorded the irregularities and illegalities committed by
the Tahasildar, Champua while passing the order in
Mutation Case No.4 of 2002-03. But, ultimately, he did
not set aside the order passed in Mutation Case No.4 of
2002-03 and disposed of the appeal with a direction as
stated above. As such, the order dated 30.09.2005 under
Annexure-2 as well as the order dated 24.04.2018 under
3
Annexure-5 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and
prays for setting aside the same.
5. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party
nos.3 to 9 at the threshold submitted that the writ
petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of
efficacious statutory remedy under Section 32 of the
Orissa Survey & Settlement Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act').
He further submitted that if the villagers are aggrieved by
the judgment and decree passed in T.S No.29 of 2001,
they can prefer appeal assailing the same by taking leave
of learned appellate court. Further, the Tahasildar,
Champua considering the report submitted by the
concerned Amin and the Revenue Inspector as well as
records available before him, directed to record the land
in question in favour of predecessor of opposite party
nos.3 to 8 and opposite party No.9 (plaintiffs in T.S.
No.29 of 2001). There is also no illegality or irregularity
in the order of the Sub-Collector, Champua. It is clear
from the impugned order under Annexure-5 that
although the Sub-Collector, Champua did not agree with
the certain findings of the Tahasildar, Champua in
Mutation Case No.4 of 2002-03, but finding that the said
mutation case was filed to record the land in question in
the names of plaintiffs in T.S No.29 of 2001, refused to
pass any order setting aside the order passed by the
Tahasildar, Champua. In the meantime, the R.O.R. has
already been prepared in the name of the plaintiffs in
T.S.No.29 of 2001. Thus, the impugned orders under
4
Annexures- 2 and 5 need not be interfered with by this
Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State supported the submission made by
Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.3 to
9 and submitted that he has no instruction as to whether
any appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree passed in T.S. No.29 of 2001.
7. Taking into consideration the submission made by
learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it appears that the Tahasildar, Champua passed
the order in Mutation Case No.4 of 2002-03 on the basis
of the report of the concerned Amin as well as Revenue
Inspector, Champua. But, the discussion made by the
Sub-Collector, Champua in his order under Annexure-5
reveal that there are discrepancies with regard to Kissam
of land in the report of concerned Amin as well as
Revenue Inspector. It is also not clear from the decree, a
copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as at
Annexure-1, as to whether Plot Nos.555/1, 485, 486 and
479/681 under Khata No.32 have been directed to be
recorded in the name of the plaintiffs therein. It further
appears from Annexure-5 that general proclamation has
not been made properly. The Sub-Collector, Champua
also found out certain other discrepancies and
irregularities in the order passed by the Tahasildar,
Champua in Mutation Case No.4 of 2002-03. Thus, in the
interest of justice, he should have set aside the order
5
passed by the Tahasildar, Champua and remitted the
matter to consider the same afresh in accordance with
law. The direction of the Sub-collector, Champua to the
Additional Tahasildar, Champua to take follow up action
for filing of appeal against the judgment and decree
passed in T.S. No.29 of 2001 could have been made at
the administrative side. It is the duty of the revenue court
to respect the judgment and decree passed by the civil
court and proceed with the matter accordingly.
8. In view of the discussion made above, this Court
feels it proper to set aside the orders dated 30.09.2005
and 24.04.2018 under Annexures-2 and 5 and remit the
matter back to the Tahasildar, Champua-opposite party
no.1 for fresh adjudication of Mutation Case No.4 of
2002-03 in accordance with law giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner as well as opposite party nos.3
to 9 and is so directed.
9. In order to avoid delay, on the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, this Court directs that both the
parties to appear before the Tahasildar, Champua-
opposite party no.1 on 05.04.2021 along with certified
copy of this order to receive further instruction in the
matter.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this
writ petition is disposed of.
................................
jm K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
