Orissa High Court
Susanta Kumar Das vs Sub-Collector on 23 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10031 of 2013
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Susanta Kumar Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar and .... Opposite Parties
others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. R.K. Mohanty,
Sr.Advocate.
assisted by
Ms. S. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. A. R. Dash,
Advocate.
Mr. D. Tripathy,
AGA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :23.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.10.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for
quashing the impugned order dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in
Mutation Appeal No.42 of 2009 by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar
(O.P. No.1).
2. Heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for O.P. No.3 and learned AGA for the State (O.P. Nos.1 & 2).
3. It has been clarified in a decision reported in J.B.R. 1997 (II) 35
(at Page 41) that,
"against an order of the Tahasildar, an appeal lies before the
Sub-Collector under Para 92 of the Mutation Manual read
with Rule 42 of the O.S. & S Rules and thereafter, revision
lies before the Board of Revenue under Para 111 of the
Mutation Manual read with Section 32 of the O.S. & S. Act."
4. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner has filed this writ
petition praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order passed
by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) in Mutation Appeal
No.42 of 2009 instead of filing revision against the same, then at this
juncture, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the
aforesaid decision, the petitioner should have filed revision instead of this
writ petition against the impugned order passed in Mutation Appeal
No.42 of 2009 by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1). For
which, this writ petition is required to be disposed of finally giving liberty
to the petitioner to approach the Revisional Court against the impugned
order.
The learned counsel for O.P. No.3 and learned AGA for the State
did not dispute to the aforesaid conclusion relating to the final disposal of
this writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner for filing revision before
the Revisional Court challenging the impugned order passed by the Sub-
Collector, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) in Mutation Appeal No.42 of 2009.
5. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid observations as well as the
submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, it is felt proper to
dispose of this writ petition finally giving liberty to the petitioner to
approach the Revisional Authority by filing revision challenging the
impugned order dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation
Appeal No.42 of 2009 by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1)
annexing the certified copy of this judgment.
In case of filing revision by the petitioner annexing the certified
copy of this judgment, the Revisional Authority shall entertain the same
without questioning about the limitation invoking the provisions under
Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, as the petitioner had
approached the wrong forum bonafidely by filing this writ petition and
the Revisional Authority shall decide the said revision on merit as per law
as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the date
of filing of the same after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties
in full compliance of the principles of natural justice.
6. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Signature Not
Verified Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Digitally Signed 23.10.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Oct-2025
11:02:59
