Orissa High Court
Jhansi Rani Bosi And Others vs State Of Odisha & Others ........... ... on 30 June, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 26833 of 2024
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Jhansi Rani Bosi and Others ............. Petitioners
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others ........... Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. S.K.Dalai,Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J.Sahoo, A.S.C.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 18.06.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 30.06.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners
against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing (setting aside)
the order dated 27.08.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.23 of 2024
by the Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6).
2. The case of the Petitioners in this writ petition is that, the
Petitioner No.1 Jhansi Rani Bosi was the owner of the case land.
She (Petitioner No.1) sold the said case land to the Petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 by executing and registering the sale deed
No.10552400468 dated 16.02.2024 after receiving due
consideration amount thereof from the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and
delivered possession of the case land to them (Petitioner Nos.2 to
5) and since then, till yet, the vendees of the Petitioner No.1 i.e.
Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 had/have been possessing the case land.
After, execution and registration of the sale deed
No.10552400468 dated 16.02.2024 by the Petitioner No.1 in
favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in respect of the case land,
mutation cases vide Mutation case Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of
2024 were initiated before the Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar,
Kashinagar (O.P. No.6) for recording the case land in the name of
the purchasers thereof i.e. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 through
mutation. After making due enquiry about the possession of the
purchasers i.e. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the case land by the
Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6) in
mutation case Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024, both the
mutation cases in respect of the case land were allowed in favour
of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and final orders in mutation case
Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024 were passed for correction of
the R.o.Rs of the case land from the name of the Petitioner No.1
to the names of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5.
On the basis of such orders passed in mutation case
Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024 in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2
to 5, separate R.o.Rs of the case land vide Khata Nos.170/719
and 170/718 were prepared in the name of the Petitioner Nos.2
to 5. But, subsequent to the preparation of the R.o.Rs of the case
land in favour of the Petitioner No.2 to 5 on the basis of the final
orders passed in mutation case Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of
2024, the same Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar
(O.P. No.6) initiated a Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 suo motu against
the Petitioners of this writ petition and disposed of that Misc.
Case No.23 of 2024 on dated 27.08.2024 finally and recalled the
orders passed in mutation case Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024
in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the ground that,
"the petitioner No.1 has executed the sale deed vide
R.S.D. No.10552400468 dated 16.02.2024 in respect of
the case land in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5
without obtaining required permission under Section 22
of the OLR Act, 1960 suppressing her Caste i.e. Madiga
(which is a Schedule Caste) and directed to the record
keeper to revert the case land from the names of the
Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 to the name of the Petitioner No.1".
3. On being dissatisfied with the said order dated 27.08.2024
passed in Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 by the Mutation Officer-cum-
Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6), the Petitioners (vendor and
vendees of the sale deed vide R.S.D. No.10552400468 dated
16.02.2024 in respect of the case land) challenged the same by
filing this writ petition jointly praying for quashing (setting aside)
the order dated 27.08.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.23 of 2024
on the ground that, Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar
(O.P. No.6) had no power or jurisdiction under law to initiate the
Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 Suo Motu for recalling the orders for
mutation of the case land in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5
passed in mutation case Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024 and
the O.P. No.6 has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the
impugned order, when, the vendor of the sale deed in respect of
the case land i.e. the Petitioner No.1 had no objection to the
mutation already allowed in respect of the case land in favour of
the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in mutation case Nos.277 of 2024 and
278 of 2024.
4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. According to the rival submissions of the learned counsels
of both the Parties on the basis of the impugned order dated
27.08.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 by the Mutation
Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6), the crux of this
writ petition is that,
"when, undisputedly, the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are in possession
over the case land and when, there is no objection to the possession
of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the case land by its previous owner
i.e. Petitioner No.1 and when, there is no objection to such mutation
of the case land in favour of the vendees i.e. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 by
the vendor i.e. Petitioner No.1, then, under such a situation, whether
the Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6) had the
power/authority/jurisdiction under law to initiate the Misc. case
vide Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 suo motu for recalling the order for
mutation of the case land already passed by him (O.P. No.6) in
favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 in Mutation case Nos.277 of 2024
and 278 of 2024 stating about the illegality/invalidity of the sale
deed No.10552400468 dated 16.02.2024 executed by the Petitioner
No.1 in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the ground of
contravention of Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960,
when, the Petitioner No.1 (vendor of the sale deed i.e. the seller of
the case land) is not wanting for cancellation of recording of the case
land from the names of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 to her name?"
6. It is the undisputed case of the Parties that, the Petitioner
No.1 was the owner of the case land and she is the vendor of the
sale deed vide R.S.D. No.10552400468 dated 16.02.2024. The
Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the vendees of that sale deed. Orders for
mutation of the case land were passed in favour of the Petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 in mutation case Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024.
The vendor/seller of the case land i.e. Petitioner No.1 has no
objection to the recording of the case land in the name of her
vendees i.e. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5, rather she (Petitioner No.1) has
given her consent for such recording of the case land in the
names of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the basis of undisputed
possession of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the same.
7. "It is the settled propositions of law that,
mutation proceedings are summary in nature, which do
not create any right in favour of any person. Mutation
proceedings are only for the purpose of fixing responsibility
on the person in actual possession of the land to pay land
revenue and other dues to the Government and the
mutation case are mostly decided on the basis of the actual
possession over the property in question, making the
decision subject to declaration of rights of the parties by the
competent Courts of law.
Therefore, the mutation entries in the revenue record is
only for the fiscal purpose and the said mutation entries
cannot be treated as document of title. Mutation is done
simply to keep the revenue record up-to-date and for the
purpose of receiving land revenue. Mere mutation of record
would not divest the actual owner or owners of a land of
their right, title and interest in the said land."
8. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and the Apex Courts in the ratio of
the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Ahmad Bux and others Vrs. U.P.
Zilla Adhkari/Asst. Collector (Ist), Sitapur and others
reported in 2021 (3) Civ.C.C. 228 (Allahabad) that,
The mutual proceedings are summary in nature, which do
not create any right in favour of any person. Mutation
proceedings are only for the purpose of fixing responsibility of the
person in actual possession of the land to pay land revenue and
other dues to the Government and mostly decided on the basis of
actual possession over the property in question, making the
decision subject to declaration of rights of the parties by the
competent court of law.
(ii) In a case between Baniz Uddin Vrs. Golapi Nessa
reported in 2021(4) Civ.C.C. 244 (Gauhati) that,
Mutation Entry in the record of rights do not vest any
ownership over the said land and is only indicative about
possession over the suit land.
(iii) In a case between Iqbal Vrs. Mohd. Shamim reported
in 2022(4) Civ.C.C. 97 (Uttarakhand) that,
Mutation of name in respect of agricultural land does not
create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on
title-- It only enables person in whose favour mutation is ordered
to pay land revenue.
(iv) In a case between Shri Krashan Vrs. Additional
Commissioner (Judicial) Div. Lucknow and others reported in
2021(4) Civ.C.C. 116 (Allahabad) that,
Mutation orders passed only to determine liability to pay
revenue to Government--Same to not create any right, title and
interest on the property in question.
(v) In a case between Mohammad Iqbal Vrs. Govt. of
India and others reported in 1997 (Supp.) Civ.C.C. 445 (H.P.)
that,
Mutation proceedings are not judicial proceedings and they do
not decide any title nor it is evidence of exclusion from property.
(vi) In a case between Jitendra Singh Vrs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2021 SCC online
(S.C.) 802 in Para No.6 that,
The mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the
fiscal purpose.
(vii) In a case between Chandrakala and others Vrs.
Saurabh and others reported in 2024 (2) Civ.C.C. 756
(Bombay) that,
Mutation entries are taken for fiscal purposes and cannot
be treated as document of title.
(viii) In a case between Prem Chand Vrs. Ameshwar Singh
reported in 2017 (2) Civ.C.C. 462 (H.P.) that,
Mutation is done simply to keep the revenue record up-to
date and for the purpose of receipt of land revenue.
9. Here, in this matter at hand, when the vendor of the sale
deed vide R.S.D. No.10552400468 dated 16.02.2024 i.e.
Petitioner No.1 is admitting the possession of her vendees i.e. the
Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 over the case land and when, there is no
objection by the vendor (Petitioner No.1) to the recordings of the
case land in the names of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 through
mutation and when, it is the settled propositions of law as per the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions that, mutation proceedings are
only for the purpose of fixing responsibility on the person in
actual possession of the land to pay land revenue and other dues
to the Government and mostly decided on the basis of actual
possession over the properties in question and when,
undisputedly, the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are in possession over the
case land, then at this juncture, the Mutation Officer-cum-
Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P.No.6) had no
power/authority/jurisdiction under law to initiate Misc. Case
No.23 of 2024 suo motu for recalling the orders for mutation
already passed by him (O.P. No.6) in mutation Case Nos.277 of
2024 and 278 of 2024 in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5
stating about the invalidity of the sale deed No.10552400468
dated 16.02.2024, when, the vendor of the said sale deed i.e.
Petitioner No.1 has not approached the O.P. No.6 for
recalling/cancelling the recordings of the case land in the names
of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 through mutation as per orders
passed in Mutation Case No.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024.
10. The conclusion drawn above finds support from the ratio of
the following decision:-
In a case between I.G.R.-cum-Excise Commissioner,
Orissa and others Vrs. Prafulla Kumar Das and others
reported 2006 (II) CLR 710, 2006(II) OLR 821 and 103 (2007)
CLT 485 (D.B.) that,
Suo Motu mutation proceeding initiated by the Tahasildar on
the direction of Collector to carve out a portion of the Government
land in possession of the Sub-Registrar to facilitate an individual
applicant, who moved the Collector for a road--Held--Initiation of
the suo motu mutation proceeding by the Tahasildar is without the
sanction of law and has to be quashed.
11. In view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
above decision, Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar
(O.P. No.6) had no authority under law to initiate Suo Motu Misc.
Case No.23 of 2024 for recalling the orders for mutation passed in
Mutation Case Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024 earlier by him
(O.P. No.6), when the previous recorded owner of the case land as
well as the vendor of the sale deed i.e. Petitioner No.1 had/has
not challenged to such recordings of the case land in favour of
Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 as per orders passed in mutation case
Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024.
12. As per law, if there is any sale of property by any S.C. or S.T.
person through any sale deed in contravention of Section 22 of
the OLR Act like the sale deed in question vide R.S.D.
No.10552400468 dated 16.02.2024, in this writ petition at hand,
such sale deed can be declared as invalid by the Revenue Officer
i.e. statutory authority under the OLR Act through initiation and
adjudication of a proceeding under Section 23 of the said Act,
but, the Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6)
while considering an application for mutation had no jurisdiction
to go into the question of validity of the sale deed. Because, such
question regarding the validity of any sale deed executed in
contravention of Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act can
only be decided by the competent statutory authority under the
OLR Act.
13. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of the following
decision:-
In a case between Iqbal Vrs. Mohd. Shamim reported in
2022 (4) Civ.C.C. 97 (Uttarkhand) that,
On the basis of sale deed while considering mutation
application, the authorities dealing with mutation application
cannot go into the validity of the sale deed and such question
regarding the validity of the sale deed can be decided by a
competent Court of law.
14. In view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
above decision, much after the final orders passed in Mutation
Case Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024, the same Mutation
Officer-cum-Tahasildar (O.P. No.6) should not have recalled such
orders for mutation stating about the invalidity of the sale deed
executed by the Petitioner No.1 in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to
5 in respect of the case land. For which, the impugned order
passed in Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 by the O.P. No.6 cannot be
sustainable under law.
15. When, there is no finding in the impugned order passed in
Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 by the O.P. No.6 that, the Petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 are not in possession over the case land and when, the
R.o.Rs of the case land in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were
prepared according to the orders passed in Mutation case
Nos.277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024 on the basis of the possession
of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the case land and when, the vendor
of the sale deed No.10552400468 dated 16.02.2024 i.e. Petitioner
No.1 has no objection to such recordings of the case land in the
names of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 through mutation and when,
the O.P. No.6 had no jurisdiction to initiate Misc. Case No.23 of
2024 suo motu and when, the O.P. No.6 had/has no power under
law to express any opinion regarding the validity of the sale deed
executed between the Parties at the time of consideration of an
application for mutation, then at this juncture, it is held that, the
impugned order passed by the Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar,
Kashinagar (O.P. No.6) in suo motu Misc. Case No.23 of 2024
recalling the orders for mutation passed in Mutation case Nos.
277 of 2024 and 278 of 2024 cannot be sustainable under law.
For which, the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed in Misc.
Case No.23 of 2024 by the Mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar,
Kashinagar (O.P. No.6) in Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 is liable to be
quashed (set aside).
16. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
Petitioners. The same must succeed.
17. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed
on contest.
18. The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 passed in suo motu
Misc. Case No.23 of 2024 by the Mutation Officer-cum-
Tahasildar, Kashinagar (O.P. No.6) is quashed.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Signature 30.06.2025//
Not
Jr.
Binayak Sahoo
Verified
Stenographer
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Jul-2025 10:54:25
