Trilochan Sahoo & Ors vs Tahasildar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3905 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           WP(C) NO.11147 OF 2023

        Trilochan Sahoo & ors.                 ....              Petitioners
                                                          Mr.S.Parija, Adv.

                                    -versus-

        Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack & anr.      ....        Opposite Parties
                                                         Mr.S.Ghosh, AGA
                 CORAM:
                 JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Order                             ORDER
No.                              20.04.2023
  01.   1.      Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

        2.      Taking aid of the Civil Court decree at Annexure-4

        involving C.S. No.152 of 2008/C.S.No.143 of 2006 remaining un-

        assailed as of now, the Petitioners appear to have moved a mutation

        proceeding. It is alleged, there is unfortunate declining of the

        mutation request and thereby issuing advice to the Competent

        Authority to go in Appeal against the Civil Court judgment. It is for

        the Petitioners undertaking Appeal exercise, vide Annexure-7

        involving Mutation Appeal Case No.147/2018 has come to be

        allowed by order of the Appellate Authority dated 7.6.2022 thereby

        remanding the proceeding to the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar for fresh

        adjudication of the proceeding. In filing the Writ Petition, it is

        alleged, even after the order of the Appellate Authority involving

        remand of the proceeding to the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar since
                                                                      Page 1 of 3
                                  // 2 //



7.6.2022

, there is no further development in the Mutation Appeal

pending before the Tahasildar, Cuttack.

3. Mr.Ghosh, learned A.G.A., however, in his opposition

submitted, since the Mutation Proceeding is pending on the remand

of the proceeding by the Appellate Authority, the Petitioners should

provide reasonable time for disposal of the same and should not

have rushed to the Court.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties and taking

into account the allegation of the learned counsel for the Petitioners

that for there is provision at Rule 35 of the O.S.S. Rules clearly

prescribes the judgment of the Civil Court is binding on the

Tahasildar and he shall be abided by the judgment in the Civil Court,

there is unnecessary pendency of such proceeding. This Court

deprecates the advisory role performed by the Tahasildar in exercise

of power under Rule 34 of the O.S.S. Rules. At the same time,

looking to the direction part in the Appel involved herein, this Court

finds, there is a clear order in the interference in the order of the

Tahasildar there is also remand of the proceeding for fresh

adjudication by the Tahasildar. Undisputedly, there has been lapse of

almost ten months. This Court deprecates such long pendency of the

remand proceeding and directs the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar, O.P.1

to show finality to the mutation proceeding taking into account the

// 3 //

direction involving Civil Suit No.152/2008 /Civil Suit No.143 of

2006 within a period of one and half months from the date of

communication of this order.

5. The Writ Petition thus stands disposed of.

6. A free copy of this order be supplied to the learned State

Counsel.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

M.K.Rout