The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3459 of 2024 Aparimita Mangaraj …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Sarangi, Advocate State of Odisha and others -Versus- …. Opposite parties Mr. B. Nayak, AGA Mr. D.K. Palit, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 27.11.2024 Order No. 05. 1. Heard Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nayak, learned AGA for the State-opposite party Nos.1 to 3 besides Mr. Palit, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.4 to 9. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order dated 5th September, 2023 passed in connection with Mutation Appeal No.36 of 2022 by learned Additional Sub-Collector, Berhampur under Annexure-1 confirming the order i.e. Annexure-6 of learned Tahasildar, Berhampur in Mutation Case No.3155 of 2021 on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest over the case land was acquired by the petitioner after having purchased the same from the vendors, namely, opposite party Nos.4 to 9 under a validly executed sale deed i.e. Annexure-5 and thereafter, mutation was to be considered. It is further submitted that upon receipt of the requisition from the concerned Sub-Registrar, Mutation Case No.3155 of 2021 was registered however, such mutation was not allowed with the impugned order dated 5th September, 2021 being passed. The contention is that the Page 1 of 4 reasons assigned by opposite party No.3 to be unjustified for the fact that the petitioner being the purchaser from the rightful owner acquired the interest over the case land. It is also submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-1 confirming the conclusion of the mutation authority. Referring to Annexures-1 and 6, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel lastly submits that the findings of the authorities below to be erroneous for the fact that the acquisition of interest over the land in question to have been duly proved and established in view of Annexure-5 having been purchased from opposite party Nos.4 to 9 and instead of considering the fact that the Hal RoR vide Annexure-2 series to be in the name of the vendors, it was for opposite party No.3 to allow the mutation, which has, howeve,r been declined, hence, therefore, the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 6 are liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice with consequential directions issued. 4. Mr. Palit, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.4 to 9 supports the argument advanced by Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the land in question sold under Annexure-5 was from the rightful vendors so recorded as per Annexure-2 series, mutation ought to have been allowed in favour of the vendee, namely, the petitioner but then, it was refused by opposite party No.3 and further, confirmed in Mutation Appeal No.36 of 2022. 5. Mr. Nayak, learned AGA for the State referring to the counter affidavit would submit that in view of the glaring errors and illegalities apparent on the face of record, details of which have been discussed in Annexure-6, opposite party No.3 could not have considered the mutation in favour of the petitioner. Furthermore, Mr. Nayak, learned AGA refers to Annexure-1 to claim that a deity’s Page 2 of 4 land was settled with a private person, hence, serious illegalities were noticed even by the Commissioner of Endowments. It is claimed that further action is still pending and under the circumstances narrated herein before, opposite party No.2 did not commit any error in passing the impugned order under Annexure-1 denying the mutation in favour of the petitioner. So, the contention is that, not only the order under Annexure-6 is well justified declining the mutation but also the decision of opposite party No.2 as per Annexure-1, which is, therefore, not to be disturbed. 6. Perused the order dated 5th September, 2021 as at Annexure-6. In fact, opposite party No.3 upon verification of the land record found the irregularities and reached at a conclusion that the mutation cannot be allowed on the premise that the subsequent corrections after OEA Case No.593 of 1991 to be invalid. The Court is of the considered view that since such a conclusion has been reached at and as has been alleged about the illegality being committed and at the same time, action is stated to be still pending so revealed from Annexure-1, but for the petitioner having purchased the case land from the rightful vendors, namely, opposite party Nos.4 to 9 with whom the Record of Right was settled so made to appear from Annexure-2 series, such an exercise at the behest of the authority below in a mutation proceeding was unnecessary. The Court reaches at a conclusion that when the sale deed was executed by opposite party Nos. 4 to 9 in favour of the petitioner on 17th March, 2021 and thereafter, requisition was received by opposite party No.3, such exercise was uncalled for except allowing the mutation. Nevertheless, as per Annexure-1, the Court finds that the illegalities which have been noticed with regard to the record later to the disposal of OEA No.593 of 1991 with enquiry being pending, any such decision at the end could unsettle the rights of the petitioner over the purchased land as law is well Page 3 of 4 settled that Record of Right does not create or extinguish title. Having concluded so, the Court is of the view that instead of allowing mutation, opposite party No.3 is dismissed same and it has been confirmed in Mutation Appeal No.36 of 2022, hence, it is a fit case, where pending enquiry and decision on any such illegalities as pointed out and so suggested from Annexure-1, the mutation should be allowed in favour of the petitioner considering Annexure-5 and for the fact that the sale is at the behest of opposite party Nos.4 to 9 allegedly the owners in respect thereof on account of Annexure-2 series. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order under Annexure-1 in Mutation Appeal No.36 of 2022 confirming the decision of opposite party No.3 vide Annexure-6 is hereby seaside with a direction to opposite party No.3 to allow the mutation in respect of the case land in favour of the petitioner with a rider that such mutation shall be subject to any such enquiry and decision vis-à-vis the illegalities revealed in connection with the revenue record for the period after the order in OEA Case No.593 of 1991. It is further directed that opposite party No.3 shall comply the direction issued herein above followed by an order as soon as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 28-Nov-2024 16:57:52 Rojina (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 4 of 4