Dhruti Ranjan Mohanty & vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 202 Ori

Orissa High Court

Dhruti Ranjan Mohanty & vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2026

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                      W.P.(C) No.36005 of 2025
        (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

        Dhruti Ranjan Mohanty &                           ....             Petitioners
        Another
                               -versus-
        State of Odisha and Others                        ....      Opposite Parties


                 Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
                                (Virtual/Physical Mode):

                  For Petitioners          -       Mr. Sumanta Bhuyan,
                                                   Advocate.

                  For Opposite Parties           - Mr. S. Nayak,
                                                   Addl. Standing Counsel


                  CORAM:
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing and Judgment :09.01.2026

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

directing the Tahasildar, Dharmagarh (Opposite Party No.4) to receive

the application for mutation of the petitioners vide Annexure-3, as the

Tahasildar, Dharmagarh (Opposite Party No.4) did not receive the

application for mutation from the petitioners.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.

Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The law concerning the duty of the Tahasildar to receive the

application or applications, if filed by any person and to act upon the

same has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vrs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others reported in 2025(3) Civil Court Cases-159 (Allahabad) that, Tahasildar cannot refuse to accept the application for mutation filed by a party/person, but he is bound to accept the same and to register the same as per law, then to proceed with the same for its disposal according to law. But, Tahasildar cannot refuse to accept the application for mutation. The oral refusal of the Tahasildar to accept the application for mutation from a person/party shall be amount to violation of the right of that person to seek legal redressal. (Para-5).

4. When, the propositions of law has already been settled in the ratio

of the aforesaid decision that, the Tahasildar cannot refuse to receive the

application of any person including the petitioners for mutation and it is

his duty as per law to receive the same and to register the same according

to law as mutation case, then at this juncture, by applying the principles

of law enunciated in the aforesaid decision to this matter at hand, I find

no justification to disallow the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed.

5. In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

The Tahasildar, Dharmagarh (Opposite Party No.4) is directed to

receive the application for mutation vide Annexure-3, if submitted by the

petitioners annexing the certified copy of this judgment and to register the

same as a mutation case and then to dispose of the same as per law as

expeditiously as possible by following the guidelines/circular issued by

the Government of Orissa vide Notification No.10186 dated 24.03.2021.

6. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of

finally.

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

09.01.2026//Rati Ranjan Nayak// Senior Stenographer

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.