Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others ........ ... on 24 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.32016 of 2023
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India.
***
Manoj Kumar Behera ............. Petitioner
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others ........ Opposite Parties
WP(C) No.30619 of 2023
Amiya Ranjan Choudhury and others ------- Petitioners
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others ........ Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr.S.Patnaik, Advocate
Mr.S.Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.A.P. Bose, Advocate
(for O.P. No.4)
Ms.J.Sahoo, A.S.C.
(for O.P. Nos.1 to 3)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 14.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025
A.C. Behera, J. Since in both the writ petitions, the Petitioners
thereof have prayed for quashing the notices dated 11.09.2023
(Annexure-3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar in reference to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022,
then, both the writ petitions are taken up together analogously
for their final disposal through this common judgment.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 and the
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 in
both the writ petitions.
3. The case of the Petitioners in their respective writ
petitions are that, they are the owners of the case land. The
R.o.Rs of the same stand in their names. They (Petitioners) are
in possession over the case land constructing boundary walls
around the same, but, surprisingly, on dated 11.09.2023, they
(Petitioners) received notices (Annexure-3) from the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in reference to Mutation Case
No.34674 of 2022 to handover possession of the case lands to
the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra).
On enquiry, they (Petitioners) came to know after
obtaining the entire order sheets of the Mutation Case
No.34674 of 2022 that, the said Mutation Case No.34674 of
2022 filed by the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) was
rejected on merit by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
on dated 07.08.2023 and accordingly, the Mutation Case
No.34674 of 2022 was disposed of finally on that day i.e. on
07.08.2023 being rejected.
Thereafter, on the basis of the judgment and decree
passed on dated 16.08.2019 in R.F.A. No.88 of 2016
(Annexure-5) by the learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Court No.II, Bhubaneswar in
favour of the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) without
impleading the Petitioners in the said R.F.A. No.88 of 2016, at
the instance of O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra), the
Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar restarted to the above
disposed of Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 and issued
separate notices to the Petitioners on dated 11.09.2023
(Annexure-3) directing them (Petitioners) to handover
possession of their respective case land to the O.P. No.4
(Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) without fail.
After receiving such notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-
3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the
Petitioners filed these writ petitions praying for quashing the
said notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the
Additional, Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in reference to Mutation
Case No.34674 of 2022 on the following grounds i.e.:-
(i) The Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
had no jurisdiction to issue notices on dated
11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) to the Petitioners referring
to the disposed of Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022
to handover possession of their lands to the O.P.
No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra).
(ii) When, the R.o.Rs of the case land stands
in the name of the Petitioners, they should not have
been directed to handover the possession of their
respective land to the O.P. No.4 on the basis of the
notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued to
them by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.
5. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar
Mohapatra) vehemently objected to the aforesaid grounds
raised by the Petitioners for quashing the notices dated
11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar contending that, the Petitioners have
approached this Court by filing these writ petitions instead of
challenging the judgment and decree passed in RFA No.88 of
2016 through a second appeal. According to him, when the
judgment and decree passed in RFA No.88 of 2016 in respect
of the case land is in force, then, as per law, the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is bound to respect the said
judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in RFA No.88 of
2016 and on the basis of said judgment and decree passed in
RFA No.88 of 2016, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
had issued notices on dated 11.09.2023 in Mutation Case
No.34674 of 2022 to the Petitioners for handing over the
possession of the case land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar
Mohapatra) properly. For which, the said notices dated
11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 can never
be quashed.
6. The notices on dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) were
issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to the
Petitioners in these writ petitions shows that, the Petitioners
are in possession over the case land and the R.o.Rs thereof
stand in their names and they (Petitioners) are paying rent for
the same.
7. There is no material in the record to show on behalf of
the O.Ps about the giving up of any opportunity of hearing to
the Petitioners before issuance of notices dated 11.09.2023
(Annexure-3) to them (Petitioners) directing them (Petitioners)
to deliver the possession of their respective land to the O.P.
No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra), even though, undisputedly,
they (Petitioners) are in possession over the case land.
8. On this Aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Rattna Oil Mills/Rice Mills Vrs.
Paramjit Singh and others reported in 2008 (I) CCC 40 (SC) in
Para No.6 that,
where, appellants had been entered in the mutation records
in respect of the lands in question, they should have been given
opportunity of hearing.
(ii) In a case between Debaranjan Das and others Vrs. State
of Orissa and others reported in 2011 (I) CLR 631 in Para
No.8 that,
in an application for mutation, the recorded owner as per
the settlement Records of Rights is required to be impleaded as a
necessary party in the Mutation Case and be given an
opportunity of hearing.
(iii) In a case between Jagtar Singh and others Vrs. The State
of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2018 (I) Apex Court
Judgment 714 (SC) that,
change in the entries as to possession in revenue record
without giving notice to the LRs of the persons shown in
possession cannot be sustainable under law. The said matter is
remitted back to the revenue authorities for hearing afresh giving
opportunity to the persons shown in possession.
9. Here in these matters at hand, when there is no material
in the record on behalf of the Opposite Parties to show that,
prior to issuance of notices on dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3)
referring to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 to the Petitioners
for handing over possession of the respective land to the O.P.
No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra), they (Petitioners) were not
given any opportunity of being heard about the cause/reason
for issuance of notices vide Annexure-3 to them for handing
over possession of their land, though, the R.o.Rs of the case
land stand in their name and when, they (Petitioners) are in
possession over their respective lands in question, then at this
juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the issuance of
notices on dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) by the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to the Petitioners for handing over
the possession of their respective land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok
Kumar Mohapatra) cannot be sustainable under law.
For which, there is justification under law for quashing
the impugned notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued
by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to the Petitioners
in reference to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022.
10. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petitions filed by the
Petitioners. The same must succeed.
11. In result, both the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners
are allowed .
12. The impugned notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3)
issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Mutation
Case No.34674 of 2022 to the Petitioners are quashed.
13. The Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to
hear the matter concerning the issuance of notices vide
Annexue-3 to the Petitioners afresh after giving opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioners, O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra)
and others, if any.
The Petitioners and the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar
Mohapatra) are at liberty to agitate their all
grounds/contentions in support of their respective cases before
the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar shall act upon the same as per law.
14. The Parties in both the writ petitions are directed to
appear before the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on
dated 16.10.2025 and to file the certified copy of this judgment
for the purpose of receiving directions of the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar relating to the causes and reasons,
which had prompted him (Additional Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar) for issuance of notices vide Annexure 3 (those
have been quashed in this judgment) to the Petitioners.
15. As such, both the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners
are disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Signed by: BINAYAK 24SAHOO Of September, 2025/ Binayak Sahoo//
Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Sep-2025 17:43:56
