Rama Trivedi vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16260 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rama Trivedi vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 5 November, 2024

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  W.P. (C) No. 26975 of 2024

            Rama Trivedi                               ....              Petitioner
                                                       Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate

                                           -Versus-

            State of Odisha & others                   ....         Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC


                       CORAM:
                       MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

                                          ORDER

05.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. Heard Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State-opposite parties.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order under Annexure-6 passed in Mutation Case No. 6896 of 2022 by opposite party No.4 on the grounds stated.

3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 36498 of 2022 (Amrita Pandey Vrs. State of Odisha & Another) dated 6th February, 2023 submits that the impugned order under Annexure-6 is not sustainable, inasmuch as, probate in respect of the Will is not required under law. The contention is that the proceeding was disposed of with the rejection of mutation by order dated 26th January, 2024 on the premise that a probated Will could not be reproduced by the petitioner and also in absence of any proof to verify the fact that the said Will is the last Will of the testator, a decision and conclusion reached at to be erroneous for the fact that the involved Will requires no probate.

4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State-opposite parties.

5. In Amrita Pandey (supra), this Court held that law is well settled in view of the decisions in Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vrs. Smt. Kamta Devi & others AIR 1954 SCC 280 and Raha Patra and others Vrs. Pandab Bhoi & others 1975 ILR Cuttack 1580 besides Sariamani Hota & others Vrs. State of Orissa & others (2011) 112 CLT 756 that there is no necessity of probate of a Will in respect of property situate in erstwhile princely States and presently in schedule area. While concluding so, it has been further directed therein to remit the matter for a decision by the Mutation Authority. The contention of Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property involved in the Will situate at Sambalpur, hence, therefore, the same does not require any probate.

6. Having regard to the decisions cited above and submission of Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and as it is well settled that it is for the Mutation Authority to examine the Will, where it does not require any probate under law, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the impugned order dated 26th January, 2024 is, therefore, legally not tenable and thus, liable to be interfered with and set aside since a demand was to submit a probated Will.

7. Hence, it is ordered.

8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order under Annexure-6 passed in Mutation Case No. 6896 of 2022 by opposite party No.4 is hereby set aside with a direction to the said authority to rehear and ensure disposal of the proceeding as per and in accordance with

law. As a necessary corollary, the proceeding in connection with Mutation Case No. 6896 of 2022 stands restored to file for a disposal by opposite party No.4 keeping in view the directions issued and observations made herein above.

9. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs.

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

kabita