Bhakti Prasad Patnaik vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 175 Ori

          ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                       W.P.(C) NO.10060 OF 2017
                  An application under Articles 226 & 227 of
                       the Constitution of India.


Bhakti Prasad Patnaik                              : Petitioners

                                -Versus-

State of Odisha & ors.                             : Opposite Parties


      For Petitioner                   : M/s.G.Mishra, D.K.Patra, Sr.Adv.
                                         A.Dash, J.Biswal & J.R.Deo,
                                         Advs.

      For O.Ps.1 to 4                  : Mr.S.Mishra, ASC

      For O.P.5                        : None

                                JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 04.01.2023

1. Though there is appearance of O.P.5 by a set of Counsel, nobody is

appearing on call of the matter for hearing.

2. Mr.G.Mishra, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner alleges that

the Competent Officer while taking a decision in the Mutation

Application of the Petitioner in its own order dated 1.5.2017 directed the

private O.P.5 to approach the right forum if there involves any allegation

// 2 //

of forgery at the same time on the same date without affording

opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, surprisingly rejected the

Mutation Application of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-12. Mr.Mishra,

learned senior counsel for the Petitioner further alleged, when the

mutation request of the Petitioner is based on a registered instrument,

there was no occasion on the part of the Competent Officer to ignore such

instrument. The impugned order is even ignoring its own direction, vide

Annexure-13.

3. Mr.S.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for O.Ps.1 to 4

while not disputing the disclosures through the order of the Additional

Land Officer, vide Annexure-13 directing the private O.P.5 to approach

the competent forum to establish the allegation of fraud, however took

support of the impugned order, vide Annexure-12 for the observations

therein.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties, looking to the

nature of dispute and the Mutation Application is based on a registered

deed, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the registered deed

involved therein could not have been ignored. Further coming to the

discussions in rejecting the Mutation Application, vide the impugned

order, this Court finds, in the event there was any allegation of forgery

instead of rejecting such Application, the Application should have been

// 3 //

considered in accordance with law, further taking aid of the registered

instrument and if anybody alleged of forgery, the Competent Officer

since incompetent to attend to such objection should have left the Party

raising forgery to establish such aspect through appropriate court.

Undisputedly, the Authority has considered the forgery aspect and

rightly, vide Annexure-13 directed the Party alleging to establish such

aspect through appropriate court. Unfortunately, there is no taking into

account its own order at Annexure-13, while dismissing the Application

of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-12. There is also allegation of no

opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in taking decision, vide

Annexure-12.

5. It is in the above backgrounds, this Court finds, the order at

Annexure-12 since passed mechanically is not sustainable in the eye of

law. Order at Annexure-12 since bad is set aside. However, for there is

requirement of re-disposal of the Mutation Application of the Petitioner,

the matter is thus remitted to the Additional Land Officer, General

Administration and Public Grievance Department, Govt. of Odisha for re-

adjudication of the mutation request of the Petitioner providing

opportunity of hearing and passing a fresh reasoned order however in

accordance with law and also giving opportunity to the Parties likely to

be affected.

// 4 //

6. The Writ Petition succeeds but with an order of remand. No order

as to costs.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 4th January, 2023/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy.