Orissa High Court
Ashok Panda @ Ashok Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha & Another on 11 July, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18799 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Ashok Panda @ Ashok Kumar Panda
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Another
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Majhi, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. T. Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 11.07.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner praying
for directing Tahasildar, Chilika (Opp. Party No.2) to accept
the application for Mutation for correction of R.o.R. of Khata
No.152 in Mouza-Injanpur under Banapur Police Station of
Chilika Tahasil in the district of Khordha from the name of
Hrushikesh Panda and Baidya Nath Panda to the name of the
petitioner, as, after the death of Hrushikesh Panda and
Baidya Nath Panda, he (petitioner) is their only legal heir as
well as successor.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The Mutation Proceedings before the Tahasildar are
guided and governed by The Odisha Survey & Settlement Act,
1958, The Odisha Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962 and The
Odisha Mutation Manual.
4. Rule 34(e) of The Odisha Survey & Settlement Rule, 1962
empowers the Tahasildar for correction of R.o.R of a land, when
Tahasildar find through an enquiry that, the entries thereof has
no relationship with the existing facts.
Paragraph No.24 of The Odisha Mutation Manual also empowers
the Tahasildar for correction of the R.o.R through initiation of
Mutation Cases applying Rule 34 of The Odisha Survey &
Settlement Rules, 1962. In that, Paragraph No.24 of The Odisha
Mutation Manual, it has been clarified that, clause (e) of Rule 34
of The Odisha Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962 is very elastic
and covers not only changes in ownership or occupation, but,
also change in the classification of land and others. The wide
scope of mutation proceeding casts a heavy responsibility on the
Tahasildar and he cannot discharge this responsibility, if he is to
wait for application or intimations for starting such a proceeding
in all cases. He should therefore take cognizance of all prima
facie mutation cases which come to his notice while engaged in
any other duty.
5. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner
approached Tahasildar, Chilika for mutation of the case land
under Khata No.152 in Mouza-Injanpur under Banapur-Police
Station of Chilika Tahasil to his name, claiming him as the
sole LR of the deceased recorded tenants thereof, to which, the
Tahasildar, Chilika (Opp. Party No.2) did not accept. For
which, he (petitioner) approached this Court by filing this Writ
Petition praying for appropriate direction for the same.
6. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decision:
In a case between Rahul Shukla Vs. The State of
M.P. & Others reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 589
M.P that, "the petitioner filed an application before
the Tahasildar for mutation of the case land to his
name exclusively, as after the death of his brother
(whose name was recorded jointly with him in the
R.o.R), he (petitioner) is the only L.R. of his brother,
but the Tahasildar did not accept his application for
mutation directing him (petitioner) to obtain the decree
from the Civil Court that, he (petitioner) is the sole
successor of his deceased brother.
Held, it is well within the competence of the
Tahasildar to consider the entitlement of the petitioner
to be mutated, if the same is sought for on the basis
of the death of some person. There is no requirement
for the applicant to seek any declaration from the Civil
Court that, he is the LR of his deceased brother. The
Tahasildar can very well consider and determine the
same in the mutation case for recording of the case
land in the name of the petitioner exclusively.
Because, in fact, it is the duty of the Tahasildar to do
so and Tahasildar cannot relegate the petitioner to the
Civil Court for seeking a declaration."
7. So, by applying the above clarified propositions of law in
the ratio of the aforesaid decision to this matter at hand and
taking into account the provisions of law envisaged in the
Rule 34 of The Odisha Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962 and
Para No.24 of The Odisha Mutation Manual as narrated above
in Para No.4, I find no justification to disallow this writ
petition filed by the petitioner.
8. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed.
9. The Tahasildar, Chilika (Opp. Party No.2) is directed to
receive the application for Mutation, if filed by the petitioner
annexing the certified copy of this Judgment for mutation of
the case land under Khata No.152 in Mouza-Injanpur of
Banapur Police Station under Chilika Tahasil in the district of
Khordha to his name and to dispose of the said Mutation
Application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible
within one month and one week positively from the date of
filing of the Mutation Application after making due enquiry for
the same.
10. As such, this writ petition is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 11 .07. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
