[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Nalu @ Lalmohan Singh vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 6 March, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27269 of 2024
Nalu @ Lalmohan Singh .... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Panigrahi, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. P.C. Acharya, Advocate for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
06.03.2026
I.A. No.18126 of 2025
Order No.
09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Instant IA is filed by opposite party No.3 seeking recall
of the Court's order dated 11th November, 2024 in W.P.(C)
No.27269 of 2024 on the grounds stated.
3. In fact, the writ petition was disposed of setting aside
the order dated 10th July, 2023 as at Annexure-3 to the same
with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the
objection of the petitioner and thereafter, to proceed to dispose
of Mutation Case No.331 of 2023 followed by an order within
the stipulated period.
4. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the opposite party
No.3 submits that a separate case was registered, however, it
would not be a mutation proceeding so to say in view of Rule
35 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and hence, no notice is
necessary for being issued and served on the petitioner as
correction of the RoR was demanded on the basis of a decree of
a Civil Court. In support of the above contention, Mr. Acharya,
learned counsel relies on a decision of this Court in Bilasini
Gochhayat @ Bilasi Dei and others Vrs. State of Odisha
and others 2024 (II) OLR 718. The further submission is that
in the decision (supra), it has been concluded that a regular
mutation proceeding is not to be initiated when the correction
of the RoR is requested on the strength of a Civil Court's
decree.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that notice is necessary and refers to Rule
34 of the Rules. A reference is made to Rule 37 thereof to claim
that process fee is realized on any such application otherwise
than applications applying for mutation. A further reference is
made to Rule 40 of the Rules with the submission that the
authority concerned is required to issue individual notices in
Form No.10 and therefore, this Court, while considering the
legality of the order dated 10th July, 2023 rightly interfered with
the same and directed opposite party No.2 to the writ petition to
consider the objection of the petitioner and to dispose of the
mutation proceeding within the stipulated period.
6. Rule 34 of the Rules relates to grounds upon which
correction of the record of rights and map may be entertained
and therein, such correction is allowed upon receiving any such
application from persons or requested on receipt of a report
from a Sub-Ordinate Officer or from the Registrar, Sub-
Registrar or from a Court or on his own motion. According to
the Court, Rule 34 of the Rules does not apply to the case of the
petitioner since because the case guided and governed by Rule
35 thereof, wherein, it has been stipulated that any such
changes in the record of rights arising out of an order of a Civil
Court or such other orders of the Revenue Court or Tribunal
shall be entertained and separately numbered and disposed of
without initiation of a mutation proceeding for that purpose. In
fact, Rule 34 of the Rules deals with request received from
Sub-ordinate Officers or on a notice from the Registrar or Sub-
Registrar as the case may be even from a Court besides on his
own motion of the Tahasildar concerned but in the present case,
the correction of the RoR has been demanded by opposite party
No.3 on the basis of a decree of a Civil Court and therefore,
Rule 35 of the Rules applies to it. Furthermore, the decision in
Bilasini Gochhayat @ Bilasi Dei (supra) deals with a similar
case and it has been held that Rule 35 of the Rules makes it a
clear that the Revenue Authority is to bound to carry out the
mutation in terms of decree of the Court even without initiating
regular mutation proceeding. Any such notice in terms of Rule
34 of the Rules shall be only upon a mutation proceeding being
initiated. The process fess is received in terms of Rule 40 of the
Rules in respect of the mutation proceedings registered on any
of the grounds of Rule 34 thereof. But, in so far as the
correction of the RoR pursuant to the Civil Court decree, in
view of Rule 35 of the Rules, it has been held that no notice is
necessary, though, a separate case is registered. The above view
of this Court is fortified by the decision in Bilasini Gochhayat
@ Bilasi Dei (supra). In so far as the case in Siba Prasad @
Mahesh Kumar Parida and another Vrs. State of Odisha
and others 2024(I) OLR 328 as has been referred to by Mr.
Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is
inapplicable since therein despite having a Civil Court decree,
correction RoR was rejected, hence, the matter was remanded
back. In view of the discussion as above and the fact that the
decree of the Court was challenged in RFA No.49 of 2018 and
it stood dismissed and no further appeal was carried at the
behest of the petitioner and hence, the same has attained
finality, this Court is inclined to recall the order dated 11 th
November, 2024 and uphold the decision of opposite party
No.2 by order dated 10th July, 2023 in Mutation Case No.331
of 2023 and accordingly, it is directed.
7. As a result, the IA is disposed of in terms of the
direction as aforesaid.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
