Himanshu Das vs State Of Odisha & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9974 Ori

Orissa High Court

Himanshu Das vs State Of Odisha & Another on 13 November, 2025

                 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK




                     WP(C) No.31353 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
                            India.

                             ***

Himanshu Das ... Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Another ... Opposite Parties.

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Mohanty, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 13.11.2025

J UDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--

1. 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, Danagadi (Opp. Party

No.2) to receive/accept the application (original of Annexure-1)

for Mutation filed by the petitioner under Annexure-1,

because, the Tahasildar, Danagadi (Opp. Party No.2) orally

refused to receive the application for Mutation of the

petitioner.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The law concerning refusal of the Tahasildar to receive

an application for Mutation submitted by a party like the

petitioner has already been clarified in the ratio of the

following decision:

I. In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. District Magistrate & Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C. (Allh.) 159 that, if any party files an application before any authority or Court, the authority or Court cannot orally

refuse to accept that application, but, as per law, he is to receive the same and to register the same as a case as per law and then, to proceed with the same for passing necessary order as per law, but, any authority or Court cannot orally refuse to receive the application of a party.

4. Here in this matter at hand, when the Tahasildar,

Danagadi (Opp. Party No.2) orally refused to receive the

application for Mutation (original of Annexure-1) of the

petitioner, then, in view of the principles of law clarified in the

ratio of the aforesaid decision, the above conduct of the

Tahasildar, Danagadi (Opp. Party No.2) i.e. his oral refusal to

receive the application for mutation of the petitioner is not in

conformity with the law. For which, necessary direction can be

issued to the Tahasildar, Danagadi (Opp. Party No.2) to

receive the application for Mutation of the petitioner, if

presented by him (petitioner).

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

allowed.

6. The Tahasildar, Danagadi (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 its

registration and after registration of the same, the Tahasildar,

Danagadi (Opp. Party No.2) shall dispose of the said Mutation

Case within a period of 1 month from the date of its

registration.

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

disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 13 .11. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.