Orissa High Court
Bijaya Kumar Agrawalla vs Collector on 17 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16579 of 2025
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950)
Bijaya Kumar Agrawalla .... Petitioner
-versus-
Collector, Boudh and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr.B.Bhuyan, Sr.Advocate
For Opposite Parties- Mr.B.B.Mishra(2)(for O.P. Nos.5 & 6)
Ms.J.Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :17.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :17.11.2025
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 quashing the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-5)
Page 1 of 6
passed in a mutation appeal vide R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 by the Sub-
Collector, Boudh (O.P No.2).
The said mutation appeal vide R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 was
preferred challenging the order dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure-4)
passed in Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Boudh
(O.P. No.3).
The Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 was filed by the Petitioner
(who is also the Petitioner in this writ petition) for recording of the
properties covered under a will executed by his mother Shanti Devi
Agrawalla in his favour.
The O.P. Nos.5 and 6 are the widow wife and son of the
deceased son of Shanti Devi Agrawalla.
2. Heard from the learned Sr.counsel for the Petitioner, the
learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.5 and 6 and the learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State.
3. It came out from the submissions of the learned counsels of
both the sides that, the Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 was filed by
the Petitioner (who is also the Petitioner in this writ petition) praying
for correction of the R.o.R. of the properties covered under the will
to his name executed by his mother Shanti Devi Agrawalla. The
genuineness of such will was disputed by the O.P. Nos.5 and 6 of
Page 2 of 6
this writ petition before the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3) as well as
in the appeal before the Sub-Collector, Boudh (O.P. No.2).
When, the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3) allowed that
Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 of the Petitoner in his favour, to
which, the O.P. Nos.5 and 6 challenged by preferring Mutation
Appeal vide R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 before the Sub-Collector, Boudh
(O.P. No.2) and when, the Sub-Collector, Boudh (O.P. No.2)
allowed that R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 through the impugned order
dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-5) and set aside to the order dated
15.04.2023
(Annexure-4) passed by the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P.
No.3), for which, the Petitioner challenged the impugned order dated
08.10.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Collector, Boudh (O.P.
No.2) in R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 by filing this writ petition.
4. The law relating to mutation, on the basis of a will like this
matter at hand has already been clarified earlier in a case between
Prasanta Biswanath @ Prasanta Kumar Biswanath Vrs. The State
of Odisha, repr. thr. its Collector, Rayagada and another reported
in 2025 (I) OLR 798 on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C. (SC) 29.
In the case between Jitendra Singh Vrs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C. (S.C.) 29 in Para
No.5 it has been clarified by the Apex Court that,
when an application for mutation is filed on the
basis of a will, and if any, dispute with respect to
the title or genuineness of the will arises, then, the
Party, who had applied for mutation on the basis of
will shall get his/her rights crystalized by the Civil
Court and thereafter on the basis of the decision of
the Civil Court, necessary mutation entry can be
made.
5. So, in view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court and the
Apex Court, the Revenue Authorities i.e. O.P. Nos.2 and 3 had no
jurisdiction for passing any order for mutation on the basis of the
will executed by Shanti Devi Agrawalla in favour of the Petitioner,
because, the O.P. Nos.5 and 6 had disputed to the title of the said
will as well as genuineness thereof.
For which, the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P.
No.3) in Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 as well as Sub-Collector,
Boudh (O.P No.2) in the mutation appeal vide R.M.A. No.10 of
2023 cannot be sustainable under law.
6. Therefore, there is justification under law for making
interference with the said orders passed by the O.P. Nos.2 and 3
through this writ petition filed by the Petitioner for quashing the
same and for leaving the Parties to approach the Civil Court for
crystallization of their rights on the basis of the will said to have
been executed by Shanti Devi Agrawalla in favour of the Petitioner
of this writ petition.
As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the
Petitioner. The same is to be allowed in part.
7. In result, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is allowed
in part.
8. The order dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the
Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3) in Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 as
well as the order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-
Collector, Boudh (O.P No.2) in mutation appeal vide R.M.A. No.10
of 2023 are quashed.
Liberty is given to the parties to approach the common law
forum i.e. Civil Court to get their rights crystalized in respect of the
Properties covered under the will said to have been executed by the
Shanti Devi Agrawalla in favour of the Petitioner of this writ
petition, making it clear that, the Civil Court shall never be
influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this
Court in this judgment and shall decide the same on merit as per law
independently.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the Petitioner is disposed
of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
17.11.2025/ Binayak Sahoo, Jr.Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
