Ramananda Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3782 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ramananda Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 23 April, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        W.P.(C) No.19408 of 2025 &
                        W.P.(C) No. 19412 of 2025

          (Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
         of India)

A.F.R.   W.P.(C) No.19408 of 2025
         Ramananda Mishra                          ...          Petitioner

                                     -versus-
         State of Odisha & others                  ... Opposite Parties

         W.P.(C) No. 19412 of 2025
         Dr. Ashok Kumar Nanda                     ...          Petitioner

                                     -versus-
         State of Odisha & others                   ... Opposite Parties


         Advocates appeared in the cases through hybrid mode:

         For Petitioner(s)     : Mr. Soubhagya Sundar Das, Sr. Adv.
                                 With M/s. T.R. Mohapatra,
                                 B.N. Dash, Advocates

         For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
                                Addl. Govt. Advocate

         CORAM:
                    JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                      JUDGMENT

23.04.2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. Both these writ applications involve

common questions of fact and law and being heard together,

are disposed of by this common judgement.

2. For convenience and brevity, the facts of W.P.(C)

No.19412 of 2025 are considered.

3. The petitioner assails the order dated

13.09.2024 passed by Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in

Mutation Case No. 24361 of 2014 corresponding to Grievance

Case No.1847 of 2024, whereby his application for recording

of the case land in his favour was rejected. He further prays

for a direction to direct the Tahasildar to make necessary

changes and corrections in the record of right relating to the

case land in his favour.

4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the

land in question forms part of a larger parcel of land

measuring Ac.1.00 dec. pertaining to Plot No.516 under

Khata No.423 of Mouza Patia being leased out in favour of

one Radhamohan Patnaik, vide Waste Land Lease Case

No.1790 of 1978 for agricultural purpose. Said lease was

cancelled by the ADM, Bhubaneswar by exercising power

under section 7-A (3) of the OGLS Act by order dated

17.03.1982 passed in Lease Revision Case No.6 of 1981. The

lessee challenged the cancellation of lease before this Court in

OJC No. 9523 of 2000. By order dated 31.10.2000, this Court

set aside the order of the Revisional Authority (ADM) and

remitted the matter to him for fresh disposal. Accordingly,

Lease Revision Case No. 6 of 1981 was reopened and

disposed of by holding that the lease granted in favour of the

lessee was valid. Accordingly, the order passed in the lease

case was confirmed. The lessee then sold the case land being

Ac.0.115.7 decimals from Plot No.516/1719 under Khata

No.474/27 to the present petitioner vide sale deed number

254 dated 09.01.2007. The petitioner, after purchase applied

for mutation of the land, which was registered as Mutation

Case No.24361 of 2014. By order dated 16.09.2017, the

Tahasildar rejected the application for mutation on the

ground that Plot No.516 of the same Mouza was under

investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime

Branch vide P.S. Case No. 3 of 2013 for fraud and

irregularity. The order of rejection was challenged by the

petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26312 of 2017. In

course of hearing of the writ application, on a direction issued

by this Court, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW,

CID, CB Bhubaneswar submitted an affidavit clarifying that

WL case No. 1790 of 1978 relating to the petitioner was not

part of the investigation being conducted by it. As such, this

Court by order dated 20.06.2024 disposed of the writ

application by setting aside the order dated 16.09.2017 of the

Tahasildar and by remitting the matter to him for fresh

consideration. The Tahasildar again rejected the application

for mutation on the ground that the petitioner was not using

the land for the purpose for which it was granted, settlement

of Jungle Kisam government land in favour of the lessee is

contrary to law and prior approval of the Collector was not

obtained before granting lease as per Sections 3 and 4 of the

Odisha Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of

Alienation) Act, 1948. (in short, 'Orissa Act of 1948'). The

order of rejection passed by the Tahasildar on 13.09.2024 is

impugned in the present writ application.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the ADM and

Tahasildar. Grant of lease in favour of Radhamohan Pattnaik

and the subsequent orders passed restoring the lease in his

favour are admitted. It is averred that the petitioner is not

using the land for agriculture. The settlement of Jungle

Kisam Government land is in violation of law. As such, the

lease, though granted, is inoperative and void.

6. Heard Mr. S.S. Das, learned Counsel for the

petitioner along with Ms. T.R. Mohapatra and Mr. S.N.

Patnaik, learned AGA for the State.

7. Mr. Das assails the impugned order by submitting

that when the original ground of rejection of the petitioner's

application for mutation was found to be untenable because

of affidavit submitted by the EOW, the Tahasildar exhibiting

undue zeal invented new grounds to somehow reject the

petitioner's application. In doing so, he exceeded the power

conferred upon him and acted like a revisional authority

deciding the correctness of the order passed by the ADM in

the Lease Revision Case. He further argues that even on

merits, the reasoning adopted by the Tahasildar is fallacious,

inasmuch as the land in question situates in the midst of a

busy commercial and educational area of Bhubaneswar

having no trace of forest whatsoever. He further submits that

the Tahasildar is guilty of discrimination, inasmuch as

mutation applications submitted by purchasers of different

portions of the same leased property have been allowed.

8. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned AGA, would argue that

undisputedly the land is a leasehold land, not converted to

freehold status. Secondly, the nature of the land is forest.

Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1948 squarely apply.

Since no prior approval of the Collector was obtained before

granting the lease, the same is invalid. The Tahasildar rightly

refused to mutate the land in favour of the petitioner.

9. The facts of the case not being disputed are

not required to be referred to again. It would suffice to

indicate that the petitioner's application for mutation was

originally rejected solely on the ground that the same was

covered under investigation being conducted by the EOW for

fraud and irregularity. However, an affidavit was filed by the

EOW in the earlier writ application (W.P.(C) No.26312 of

2017) clarifying that the investigation pertained to other

lands. In Paragraph-8 of the affidavit (copy enclosed as

Annexure-7), the following has been stated:

"That, the investigation of above two cases relates to fraudulent RORs prepared in the name of Sulochana Devi, vide New Khata No. 489/45 bearing Plot No.516/1676, Area 2 Acre, from Khata No 493, Plot No 516 vide WL Case No.1263/78 and in the name of Sarbeswar Sinha, for two acres of Land vide New Khata No.489/46, Plot No 516/1677, Area Ac.2.00 from Khata No 493, Plot No 516 vide W.L. Case No. 1262/1978. Hence, these two cases of EOW are not related to the property under Khata No.474/27 corresponding to Sabik Khata No.423, Plot No.516/1719, Ac.0.115.7 dec."

[ emphasis added]

10. Taking note of such affidavit, a Coordinate Bench

of this Court, by order 20.06.2024 held as follows.

"xx xx xx

5. In view of the statements made in the affidavit filed by the EOW, it is now clear that the property in question is not involved in EOW PS Case No. 3 of 2013, contrary to the observation of the Tahasildar made in the impugned order under Annexure-6. As such, the order of the Tahasildar dated 16th September, 2017 under Annexure-6 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to him to decide afresh in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

11. It would be significant to note that the grounds of

rejection as mentioned in the impugned order were never

cited. It is only after the matter was remitted for disposal

afresh that certain new grounds have been cited. Reading of

the impugned order reveals that the Additional Tahasildar

has acted way beyond his jurisdiction to determine the

validity of the lease granted as far back as in the year 1978,

as confirmed by the Revisional Authority (ADM) under the

provisions of the OGLS Act in the year 2006.

12. It goes without saying that in a mutation

proceeding, the Tahasildar exercises power conferred under

Rule-34 OSS Rules which is reproduced below:

"34. Grounds on which correction of the record-of-rights and map is to be made - The Tahasildar may on application in that behalf of any

person interested or on receipt of a report from any of his subordinate officers or on receipt of a notice from the Registrar or Sub-Registrar appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, or from a Court or on his own motion, order any charge of any entry in the record-of-rights according to the rules hereinafter prescribed on any one or more of the following grounds, namely

(a) that all persons interested in any entry in the record-of-rights wish to have it changed;

(b) that by a decree in a civil suit, any entry therein has been declared to be erroneous,

(c) that being founded on a decree or order of a Civil Court or on the order of any competent authority, the entry therein is not accordance with such decree or order:

(d) that such decree or order has subsequently been varied on appeal, revision or review;

(e) that any entry therein has no relationship with the existing facts; and

(f) that by preparation of a survey record under Chapter II of the Act, any change is necessitated in the record-of-rights."

13. Rule 35 being also relevant is reproduced below:

"35. Registration of proceedings - All proceedings commenced on a report, application or otherwise under this Chapter shall be registered as mutation cases and each such case shall be numbered and entered in register in Form No.8 to be called the Mutation Register:

Provided that changes in any entry of the record-of- rights arising out of an order to decree of Revenue or a Civil Court or the order of a Tribunal constituted under any law for the time being in force shall be numbered and entered in the Register as separate cases and carried out by the Tahasildar immediately on receipt of such order or decree, as the case may be, and it shall not be

necessary to commence a Mutation Proceeding for that purpose."

[ Emphasis added]

14. Evidently, the Tahasildar is denuded of power to

travel beyond the four corners of Rules 34 and 35. In other

words, he can affect any change in any entry in the record of

rights on any one or the grounds referred to Rule 34. It does

not confer any power on him to decide the validity of an order

passed under a different statute and that too by a superior

authority. In the instant case, the lease was granted and

ultimately confirmed by the competent authority exercising

power conferred by the OGLS Act. Once the Revisional

Authority (ADM) under the OGLS Act confirms the lease, the

Tahasildar cannot sit in appeal over the same and attempt to

reverse such decision by refusing to entertain the application

for mutation. It would be contrary to the diktat of Rule-35

quoted before. The impugned order deserves to be interfered

with on such score alone.

15. Even otherwise, the Tahasildar has held that the

original plot was recorded as Kisam Jungle and that the

petitioner is not using the land for which it was initially

granted, i.e. for agriculture. On the face of the argument of

learned counsel for the petitioner that the area in question is

in the middle of a huge commercial and educational hub,

which has not been rebutted in any manner by the State

Counsel, the ground cited is untenable. Moreover, there is no

finding that the original nature of the land persists even till

date.

16. It has been argued that persons who have

purchased different portions of land from the same Khata

have been favoured with positive orders of mutation. Copy of

one such order passed by the R.I. on 02.05.2012 in Mutation

Case No. 25799 of 2011 has been enclosed as Annexure-3 to

the writ application. Significantly, the land involved therein

also relates to Khata No.474/27. Learned State Counsel has

not disputed the contention that the land owners of different

plots of land under the same Khata have had orders passed

in their favour by the same Tahasildar. Therefore, on

equitable considerations also, allowing the impugned order to

subsist would tantamount to perpetuating an act of

discrimination.

17. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts,

law, the contentions raised and the discussions made, this

Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order

cannot be sustained in the eye of law and therefore, warrants

interference.

18. In the result, the writ applications are allowed. The

impugned orders are hereby set aside. The Tahasildar,

Bhubaneswar is directed to allow the application for mutation

by recording the case land in favour of the petitioners without

any further delay and in any case, not later than four weeks

from the date of production of certified copy of this order by

the petitioners.

.............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 23rd April, 2026/ A.K. Behera/ A.K. Rana

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 14:02:29