[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Debasis Sahu And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 7 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13439 of 2024
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Debasis Sahu and Others .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - Mr. Ramakant Mohanty,
Sr.Advocate.
Ms. S. Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. S. R. Pattanaik,
Addl. Govt. Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing and Judgment :07.01.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for
quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure-
2) passed in Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 by the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5), wherein the O.P. No.5 had dropped to the said
mutation case.
In addition to the above prayer, the petitioners have also prayed for
quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure-
Page 1 of 8
1) passed in O.S.S. No.66 of 2021 under Section 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act,
1958 by the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revisional Court, Member
Board of Revenue, Cuttack Camp at Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3), wherein a
direction was given to place the matter before the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) for mutation of the case land.
2. Heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and
learned AGA for the State.
3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the
petitioners for filing of the same is that, the petitioners had purchased the
case land from the LRs of the recorded owner Hadibandhu Sahu i.e. from
O.P. Nos.6 & 7 through registered sale deed dated 07.02.2020
(Annexure-6).
By the time of above purchase of the case land through the RSD
vide Annexure-6, the final R.o.R. of the case land had already been
published by the Settlement Authorities in the name of the father of O.P.
Nos.6 & 7 i.e. Hadibandhu Sahu.
After purchasing the case land from O.P. Nos.6 & 7 through the
RSD dated 07.02.2020 vide Annexure-6, the petitioners applied for
mutation of the case land in their favour by filing a mutation case vide
Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 before the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
(O.P. No.5).
Page 2 of 8
In the said mutation case, an enquiry was conducted by the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) and a report was called for from the
R.I., Ghatikia. Accordingly, the R.I., Ghatikia submitted a report
clarifying the possession of the petitioners over the case land on the basis
of their purchase from the O.P. Nos.6 & 7 through the registered sale
deed vide Annexure-6.
4. As per the Order dated 16.05.2020 (Annexure-2), the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) accepted the report of the R.I., Ghatikia and
passed order in Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 as follows:-
"The Case Record is put up today. After due verification of flow of title
from Recorded Tenant to Applicant through the original RSD and link
documents, the RI has recommended the case for approval. Possession
report of RI is a part of the case record. The order of RI is confirmed."
The aforesaid order passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is
unambiguously clarifying about the final disposal of the Mutation Case
No.4898 of 2020 in favour of the petitioners for correction of R.o.R. of
the case land from the name of Hadibandhu Sahu to the names of the
petitioners.
However, surprisingly, after some days, the same Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar i.e. O.P. No.5 as per the Order dated 23.06.2020 dropped to
that Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 passing an order as follows:-
"Area shortage. Hence, this case is dropped."
5. Thereafter, without getting any way, the petitioners approached the
Revisional Authority by filing a revision under Section 15(b) of the
Page 3 of 8
O.S.S. Act, 1958 vide O.S.S. No.66 of 2021 before the Addl.
Commissioner, Addl. Revisional Court (O.P. No.3).
6. After hearing from both the sides, the O.P. No.3 disposed of the
said O.S.S. No.66 of 2021 on dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure-1). The
operative portion of that Annexure-1 is as follows:-
"the petitioners are free to get their plot mutated in the concerned
Tahasil Office. As the transaction has been made after final
publication of RoR and after conversion of lease hold status to free
hold by the Govt. in G.A. Dept as per Xerox copy of documents
filed in this case, the matter may be taken up with Tahasil Office
for mutation of the plot."
7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed this writ petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the above
both the impugned orders i.e. order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure-2)
passed in Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 by the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) as well as the order dated 31.03.2023
(Annexure-1) passed in O.S.S. No.66 of 2021 by the Addl.
Commissioner, Addl. Revisional Court, Member Board of Revenue,
Cuttack Camp at Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3).
8. As per Para No.47 of the Orissa Mutation Manual, an application
for mutation can be allowed by the Tahasildar on the basis of title
coupled with possession.
9. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, the R.o.R. of the case
land was finally published in the name of the father of the petitioners'
Page 4 of 8
vendors i.e. in the name of Hadibandhu Sahu. The said R.o.R. was never
challenged either by the State or anybody else.
Therefore, the finally published R.o.R. of the case land in the name
of the father of the vendors of the petitioners has remained unchallenged.
10. After the death of the recorded tenant of the case land i.e.
Hadibandhu Sahu, the case land devolved upon the vendors of the
petitioners i.e. O.P. Nos.6 & 7 as the successors of Hadibandhu Sahu.
Subsequently, the vendors of the petitioners transferred the case land in
favour of the petitioners by executing and registering the sale deed dated
07.02.2020
vide Annexure-6.
11. During the enquiry of the Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020, the
local RI i.e. RI, Ghatikia submitted a report on dated 15.05.2020 clarifing
that, the petitioners are in possession over the case land on the basis of
their sale deed dated 07.02.2020 (Annexure-6) and there was no objection
to their title and possession from any quarter including from the side of
the Government.
On the basis of the said sale deed vide Annexure-6 as well as report
dated 15.05.2020 of the local RI regarding the possession of the
petitioners over the case land, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5)
as per the order dated 16.05.2020 allowed the Mutation Case No.4898 of
2020 confirming the report of the R.I, Ghatikia. So, as per the order dated
16.05.2020, virtually the Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 filed by the
petitioners was disposed of by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5)
and no further order was required to be passed by the Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar on dated 23.06.2020 to drop that Mutation Case No.4898 of
2020.
As per law, when Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 was allowed on
dated 16.05.2020 in favour of the petitioners, the right had accrued in
favour of the petitioners, then there was no scope and power with the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) to pass any order on dated
23.06.2020 superseding the previous order dated 16.05.2020.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.06.2020 passed by the
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) in Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020
to drop the said mutation case is against law, which is held as redundant.
Likewise, the Revisional Authority, in spite of knowing about the
order dated 16.05.2020 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P.
No.5) passed in Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 in favour of the
petitioners, he (O.P. No.5) should not have directed the petitioners to
approach the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) again by filing an
another application for mutation for recording of the case in their names.
The above directions of the O.Ps driving the petitioners from pillar
to post without granting any relief to them (petitioners) are not
inconformity with law.
12. As per the recent Notification No.42648 dated 12.11.2025 of the
Government of Odisha, wherein sub-clause(g) has been inserted under
Rule 34 of the O.S.S. Rules, 1962 clarifying that, even after the final
publication of the Record of Rights (R.O.R.) by the Settlement
Authorities, the Tahasildar has jurisdiction to effect mutation of the case
land in favour of the petitioner.
13. When, the impugned order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure-2) passed
in Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P.
No.5) as well as the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed in O.S.S.
No.66 of 2021 by the Addl. Commissioner, Addl. Revisional Court (O.P.
No.3) are not inconformity with law for the reasons assigned above, then
at this juncture, there is justification under law for making interference
with the said impugned orders vide Annexure-2 and Annexure-1 through
this writ petition filed by the petitioners.
14. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
The same is to be allowed.
15. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.
The impugned order dated 23.06.2020 (Annexure-2) passed in
Mutation Case No.4898 of 2020 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P.
No.5) as well as the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure-1)
passed in O.S.S. No.66 of 2021 by the Addl. Commissioner, Addl.
Revisional Court (O.P. No.3) are quashed.
The Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) is directed to record the
case land in the name of the petitioners within a period of one month
from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment
complying all the formalities and paraphernalia thereof.
16. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
07.01.2026//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Jan-2026
