Orissa High Court
Sudam Charan Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 27 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.28180 of 2025
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950)
Sudam Charan Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. N.R. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. Tej Kumar,
Learned Additional Sanding Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :27.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :27.10.2025
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 23.06.2025(Annexure-2)
passed in Mutation Case No.5714 of 2025 by the Tahasildar,
Page 1 of 6
Salipur(Opposite Party No.2) in the district of Cuttack on the ground
of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, because, said
Mutation Case No.5714 of 2025 of the petitioner has been disposed
of by the Tahasildar, Salipur(Opposite Party No.2) as per impugned
order dated 23.06.2025 vide Annexure-2 without giving any
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner assigning the reasons
that,
"the petitioner has purchased the case land from one of the
co-sharers of his vendor without taking the consent of his
other co-sharers."
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that, when,
there is a statutory appellate forum to challenge the impugned order
passed by the Tahasildar, Salipur(Opposite Party No.2) in Mutation
Case No.5714 of 2025, by preferring an appeal before the Sub-
collector, Cuttack, then, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
not entertainable under law.
The law concerning the maintainability of a writ petition under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 despite
Page 2 of 6
availability of an alternative remedy has already been clarified by
the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Whirlpool Corporation vrs.
Registrar of Trade Marks : reported in (1998) 8 SCC-1
that,
Despite availability of an alternative remedy, a writ
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 can be entertained in the following cases:-
(a) Where principles of natural justice are
breached.
(b) Where fundamental rights are sought to be
enforced or breach thereof is complained of
(c) Where the impugned order is passed by an
authority without justification.
(d) Where the Constitutionability of any provision is
called in question.
(ii) In a case between The Assistant Commissioner of
State Tax and others vrs. M/s. Commercial Steel
Limited : reported in (2022) 16 SCC-447 that,
Despite availability of an alternative remedy, a writ
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 can be entertained in the following cases :-
(i) An access of jurisdiction.
(ii) A breach of fundamental rights.
(iii) A violation of the principles of natural justice.
(iv) A challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated
legislation.
Page 3 of 6
Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner has challenged
the impugned order dated 23.06.2025(Annexure-2) passed by the
Tahasildar, Salipur(Opposite Party No.2) in Mutation Case No.5715
of 2024 by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 on the ground for non-compliance of the
principles of natural justice, then at this juncture, in view of the
principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the ratio of the
above decisions, it cannot be held that, this writ petition filed by the
petitioner is not entertainable under law.
4. So far as the sustainability of the impugned order of rejection
to the Mutation Case No.5714 of 2025 of the petitioner on dated
23.06.2025
(Annexure-2) by the Tahasildar, Salipur(Opposite Party
No.2) on the ground of non-taking of the consent of the co-sharers of
the vendor of the petitioner in the sale deed executed in his favour in
respect of the case land is concerned,
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the cases between Sudam Das vrs. Krushna Mahakur :
reported in JBR Vol.XVII(1982) Part-II Page-43 and Maheswar
Lenka vrs Kinei Swain : reported in JBR Vol-XI(1975) Part-II
Page-130 that,
"when one of the co-sharers sells his share, the purchaser will become
the co-sharer in place of the seller. No particular plot of land can be
mutated in his name, unless other co-shares consent to it or a decree
from the Civil Court is obtained indicating his share, before that,
partition is premature."
5. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of
the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, when the
petitioner has purchased the case land from his vendor, i.e., one of
the co-sharers of the case land without the consent of the other co-
sharers of his vendor, then, as per law, he(petitioner-purchaser) has
become the co-sharer of the case land with the vendor of his co-
sharers in place of his vendor.
For which, the Mutation Case No.5714 of 2025 filed by the
petitioner should not have been dismissed by the Tahasildar,
Salipur(Opposite Party No.2). Because, as per law, the
petitioner(purchaser) has become the co-sharer in place of his
seller/vendor. For which, his name is required to be indicated
through mutation in place of his seller/vendor along with the co-
sharers of his seller/vendor.
6. Therefore, the dismissal of the Mutation Case No.5714 of
2025 of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Salipur(Opposite Party
No.2) through the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 cannot be
sustainable under law. For which, the same is liable to be quashed.
7. As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed in part.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in
part.
The impugned order dated 23.06.2025 vide Annexure-2 passed
in Mutation Case No.5714 of 2025 by the Tahasildar,
Salipur(Opposite Party No.2) is quashed.
The matter, i.e., Mutation Case No.5714 of 2025 is remitted
back to the Tahasildar, Salipur(Opposite Party No.2) to decide the
same afresh as per law on the basis of the observations made in this
judgment after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner,
his vendor, co-sharers of his vendor and others, if any, as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months
from the date of filing of the certified copy of this judgment by the
parties before the Tahasildar, Salipur(Opposite Party No.2) in
Mutation Case No.5714 of 2025.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed
of finally.
Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 29-Oct-2025 07:13:48
The 27th of October, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
