(An Application Under Articles 226 And ... vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11322 Ori

Orissa High Court

(An Application Under Articles 226 And ... vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 15 December, 2025

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                               W.P.(C) No.35040 of 2025

             (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
              1950)


            Dambarudhar Sabar                         ....           Petitioner
                                          -versus-
            State of Odisha and others                ....     Opposite Parties


                      Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
                                (Virtual/Physical Mode):
                      For Petitioner      -      Mr. A.K. Nayak,
                                                 Advocate.

                      For Opposite Parties-      Mr. G. Mohanty,
                                                 Learned Sanding Counsel

                      CORAM:
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :15.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :15.12.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the

petitioner praying for directing the Tahasildar, Narla in

the district of Kalahandi (Opposite Party No.3) to

receive the application for mutation of the petitioner, as the Tahasildar, Narla(Opposite Party No.3) did not

receive the application for mutation of the petitioner.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The law concerning the duty of the Tahasildar for

the receiving the application or applications, if filed by

any person and to act upon the same has already been

clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav vrs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others : reported in 2025(3) Civil Court Cases-159 (Allahabad) that, Tahasildar cannot refuse to accept the application for mutation filed by a party/person, but, he is bound to accept the same and to register the same as per law, then, to proceed with the same for its disposal according to law, but, Tahasildar cannot refuse to accept the application for mutation. The oral refusal of the Tahasildar to accept the application for mutation from a person/party shall be amount to violation of the right of the that person to seek legal redressal.(Para-5).

4. When, the propositions of law has already been settled

in the ratio of the aforesaid decision that, the Tahasildar

cannot orally refuse to receive the application of any person

including the petitioner for mutation and it is his duty as

per law to receive the same and to register the same

according to law as mutation case, then, at this juncture,

by applying the principles of law enunciated in the

aforesaid decision to this matter at hand, I find no

justification to disallow the writ petition filed by the

petitioner.

5. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is to

be allowed.

In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed.

The Tahasildar, Narla(Opposite Party No.3) is directed

to receive the application for mutation, if filed by the

petitioner annexing the certified copy of this judgment and

to register the same as a mutation case and then to dispose

of the same as per law as expeditiously as possible by

following the guidelines/circular issued by the Government

of Orissa vide Notification No.10186 dated 24.03.2021.

6. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is

disposed of finally.

(A.C. Behera), Judge

Signature NotOrissa Verified High Court, Cuttack th Digitally Signed The 15 of December, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 16-Dec-2025 18:23:30