Orissa High Court
Mamata Routray vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 26 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24591 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Mamata Routray .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :23.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.09.2025
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 (setting aside) the order of rejection to the Mutation Case
No.3492 of 2024 of the petitioner passed on dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-
9) by the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop, Puri (O.P. No.3).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner had filed Mutation
Case No.3492 of 2024 before the Tahasildar, Gop praying for mutation of
the purchased land of the petitioner in Mouza Batalibhuan under Khata
No.51, Plot No.204 to the name of the petitioner on the basis of the
Page 1 of 11
registered sale deed dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-1) executed in favour of
the petitioner by the land owner of the said land.
The status of the purchased land of the petitioner under Khata
No.51, Plot No.204 in Mouza Batalibhuan under Puri Sadar P.S. is under
sthitiban status. At the time of purchase, the said land was also under the
sthitiban satwa/status of the vendor of the petitioner.
After registration of the Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 by the
Tahasildar, Gop on the application of the petitioner for correction of
R.o.R. of Khata No.51 Plot No.204 from the name of the vendor of the
petitioner to the name of the petitioner, the Tahasildar, Gop transferred
that Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 to the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop for its
consideration and disposal. The Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3.)
rejected to the Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 of the petitioner through
the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) assigning the reasons
that,
"perused all documents presented by the petitioner and joint
verification report by R.I. and Forest Department and others. As
the land is under contested reasons, hence it cannot be disposed
of directly as per letter No.10186 dated 24.03.2021 of R & DM
Deptt. Hence, necessary procedure is followed as per direction
of Hon'ble High Court, Mutation Manual and O.S. & S. Rules,
1962. On the basis of joint verification, it is stated that, the land
falls under core area of Balukhanda-Konark wild life sanctuary,
also as per 3rd Monitoring Committee, 4th Monitoring
Page 2 of 11
Committee, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Joint
Verification Letter No.64 dated 14.07.2025 office of the R.I.,
Chhaitana, Forest Department and others, I am inclined to
disallow the case. Hence, rejected."
3. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order of rejection
to the Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 of the petitioner passed on dated
29.07.2025
(Annexure-9) by the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3), the
petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for
quashing the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9)
on the ground that, in fact, Mouza of the case land i.e. Batalibhuan under
Puri Sadar P.S. in the district of Puri is not coming within the limit of
sanctuary and Eco-Sensitive Zone as per the notification of the
Government and the case land is beyond the limit of sanctuary and Eco-
Sensitive Zone, for which, there was no impediment under law to allow
the Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 of the petitioner for correction of the
R.o.R. of the case land to the name of the petitioner on the basis of the
registered sale deed dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-1) in favour of the
petitioner.
The further case of the petitioner is that, there was/is no prohibition
under law for correction of R.o.R. of the sthitiban land like the case land
on the basis of the purchase through the registered sale deed from the
rightful owner. For which, the O.P. No.3 should not have rejected the
application for mutation vide Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 of the
petitioner as per the impugned order vide Annexure-9.
4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the O.Ps.
5. It is the settled propositions of law that, no person shall be deprived
of his property save by authority of law. The private land of any person
cannot be the property of State automatically, without lawful acquisition
of the same and without payment of adequate compensation for the same
to the property owner (land owner).
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions of the Apex Court:-
(i) In a case between P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vrs. Revamma
and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 (SC) 1753 that,
as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950,
property right is not only the constitutional right, but also human
right. The State Government cannot deprive any person enjoying
the property.
For any illegal deprivation to the rightful owner in enjoying
the property by the State, the State will be liable to pay damages.
(Para 23)
(ii) In a case between Vidya Devi Vrs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020 (I) OLR (SC) 366 that,
the right to private property cannot be deprived without due
process of law and without payment of just and fair compensation.
(Para 10.1)
(iii) In a case between Yerikala Sunkalamma & another Vrs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue and others
decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4311 of 2025
{arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3324 of 2015 (decided on
24.03.2025)} (Para No.124) that,
as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950, no
person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
The property of a person cannot be the property of State
automatically without lawful acquisition of the same and without
payment adequate compensation for the same to the property owner
(land owner).
(iv) In a case between Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar Vrs State of
Gujarat and another reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 that,
as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950, no
person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law.
Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking
possession under Article 300-A. If there is no law, there is no
deprivation.
6. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner has purchased the
property in Mouza Batalibhuan under Khata No.51 Plot No.204 from the
recorded sthitiban tenant through registered sale deed dated 30.09.2024
(Annexure-1) and the transfer of property is the inherent right of the land
owner and when the interest of the case land under Khata No.51, Plot
No.204 in Mouza Batalibhuan has already been transferred as per law in
favour of the petitioner through the execution and registration of the
undisputed registered sale deed dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-1) in favour
of the petitioner by the sthitiban land owner and when the said land has
not been acquired as per law by the Government from the petitioner
through proper land acquisition proceedings and when the ownership and
possession of the case land is with the petitioner, then at this juncture, in
view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions of the Apex Court, the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3)
should not have rejected to the Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 of the
petitioner for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land under Khata No.51
Plot No.204 to the name of the petitioner through the impugned order
dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9).
7. As per law, mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of fixing
responsibility of a person, who is in actual possession of a land to pay
land revenue and other dues to the Government and mostly mutation
cases are decided on the basis of actual possession over the property in
question.
So, mutation orders are passed only to determine liability to pay
land revenue. Mutation order passed in favour of a person on the basis of
registered sale deed cannot be set aside or recalled, unless registered sale
deed executed in favour of the said person is set aside in any legal
proceeding.
Title of the property can only be decided by a competent Civil
Court, not by Revenue Authorities in Mutation proceedings.
The collection of rent is to be made from the person in possession
and the person in possession has his liability to pay rent.
As per Para No.47 of the Orissa mutation Manual, mutation of the
landed properties is to be made on the basis of documents of transfer of
title as well as possession under the color of title.
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Ahmad Bux and others Vrs. UP Zila
Adhikari/Asst. Collector (Ist), Sitapur and others reported in
2021 (3) Civ.C.C. 228 (Allahabad) that,
mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of fixing
responsibility of the person in actual possession of the land to
pay land revenue and other dues to the Government and mostly
decided on the basis of actual possession over the property in
question. (Para 6)
(ii) In a case between Shri Krashan Vrs. Addl. Commissioner
(Judicial) Div., Lucknow & Ors reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C.
116 (Allahabad) that,
mutation orders are passed only to determine liability to pay
land revenue to the Government. (Para 12)
(iii) In a case between Mithilesh Devi Vrs. State of U.P. & Ors.
reported in 2023 (3) Civ.C.C. 351 (Allahabad) that,
mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis
of the registered sale deed cannot be recalled/set aside unless the
registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is set
aside in any legal proceeding. (Para 10)
(iv) In a case between Jitendra Singh Vrs State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C.29 (SC) that,
title of the property is concerned, can only be decided by a
competent Civil Court, not by Revenue Authority in a mutation
proceeding. (Para 6.1)
(v) In a case between Bhagaban Das and Ors. Vrs.
Jagabandhu Jena and Ors. reported in 24 (1958) CLT 345 and
in a case between Arjun Samal Vrs. Kailash Chandra Kanungo
and others reported in 40 (1974) CLT 294 that,
the rent or revenue is collected on the basis of the collection
to be made from the person in possession of the property. The
revenue authorities look only to the man in possession for his
liability to pay rent.
8. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner is the purchaser of
the case land through registered sale deed dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-1)
from the sthitiban recorded land owner and when the mutation
proceedings are only for the purpose of fixing responsibility of the
person, who is in actual possession of the land to pay land revenue and
other dues to the Government and when mutation cases are to be decided
on the basis of actual possession over the properties in question and when
the mutation is to be made on the basis of the registered sale deed
executed by the land owner, unless and until the said sale deed in favour
of the applicant for mutation is set aside in any legal proceeding and
when it is the duty of every land owner in possession to pay the land
revenue to the Government in his/her name through proper rent receipt
and when there is no dispute in this matter regarding the ownership and
possession of the petitioner over the case land and when the Annexure-9
itself is showing about the purchase and possession of the petitioner over
the case land and when the land of the petitioner has not been acquired
lawfully by the Government, then at this juncture, in view of the
principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, the
application for mutation of the petitioner should not have been rejected
through the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) by the O.P.
No.3 indirectly questioning the title of the petitioner in the case land,
which is beyond the jurisdiction of O.P. No.3 as per law.
9. The Notification of the Government available in the Record in
nowhere prohibiting the mutation of the land in favour of the land owner
on the basis of possession, but only there is restriction about the
conversion of the status of the land and there is no document on behalf of
the State through Notification about the inclusion of Mouza of the case
land i.e. batalibhuan under Puri Sadar P.S. within the limit of sanctuary
and Eco-Sensitive Zone.
10. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is
held that, it is the right of every land owner like the petitioner to mutate
the purchased land to the name of the petitioner through mutation case
and when it is the duty of the Tahasildars/Revenue Officers including the
Addl. Tahsildars like O.P. No.3 to allow the application for mutation of
the land owner in possession purchased through undisputed registered
sale deed and when the petitioner had applied for mutation of the
purchased land of the petitioner through registered sale deed dated
30.09.2024 (Annexure-1) on the basis of ownership and possession, then
at this juncture, the O.P. No.3 should not have rejected its Mutation Case
No.3492 of 2024 through the impugned order dated 29.07.2025
(Annexure-9).
For which, the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure -9)
passed by the O.P. No.3 cannot be sustainable under law.
11. When it is held above that, the impugned order dated 29.07.2025
(Annexure-9) passed by the O.P. No.3 is not sustainable under law, the
same is liable to be quashed.
12. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same is to be allowed.
13. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the
Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3) in Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 is
quashed.
14. The matter vide Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 is remitted back
(remanded back) to the Addl. Tahsildar, Gop (O.P. No.3) for preparation
of the R.o.R. of the case land in the name of the petitioner on the basis of
the documents and materials relating to the ownership and possession of
the petitioner on the same permitting the petitioner for its production in
disposing of the Mutation Case No.3492 of 2024 within the period of one
month from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment
before the O.P. No.3.
15. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
26.09.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 27-Sep-2025
14:58:31
