Orissa High Court
Sashikanta Panigrahi vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 20 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.25050 of 2025
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Sashikanta Panigrahi .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. S. B. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Smt. J. Sahoo,
Addl. Sanding Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :20.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :20.09.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
praying for quashing the impugned order of rejection to his Mutation
Case No.15422 of 2025 passed on dated 12.08.2025 by the Addl.
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3).
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASC
for the State.
3. The petitioner is the purchaser of a portion of plot No.139 under
Khata No.111 in Mouza Giringaput under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the
district of Khordha.
The Khata No.111 stands jointly in the name of Nimai Charan
Behera and Chaitanya Behera.
The petitioner is the purchaser from Nimai Charan Behera only and
Chaitanya Behera has not given his consent in the sale deed of the
petitioner to sell the same. For which, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
refused to mutate the case land in the name of the petitioner, because the
co-sharer of his vendor has not given consent to sell the same in favour of
the petitioner.
4. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decision:-
In a case between Sudam Das Vrs. Krushna Mahakur reported
in JBR Vol.XVIII (1982) Part-II Page 43 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, applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
above decision to this matter at hand, it is held that, the Addl. Tahasildar
should not have rejected the mutation application of the petitioner out
rightly on the ground of non-according of consent by the co-sharer of the
vendor of the petitioner.
6. When there is no dispute about the purchase of part of plot No.139
from one of the co-owner thereof, then at this juncture, it should have
become the duty of the Addl. Tahasildar to mutate the land making the
petitioner as co-owner of the R.o.R. with Chaitanya Behera.
For which, the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-3
Series) passed in Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025 by the Addl.
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) cannot be sustainable under law.
7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-3
Series) passed in Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025 by the Addl.
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) is quashed (set aside).
The matter vide Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025 is remitted back
(remanded back) to the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) to
decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner and others, if any, following the principles of law
enunciated in the ratio of the above decision.
8. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Addl. Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) on dated 08.10.2025 and to produce the
certified copy of this judgment in order to receive the directions of O.P.
No.3 as to further proceedings of that Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Signature Not Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
20.09.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Verified Junior Stenographer
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Sep-2025
