Misc. Case No. 17 of 2003 · Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** M/s. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. and another …………… Petitioners -VERSUS- State of Odisha and others ……………….….. Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : Mr. R.K.Mohanty, Sr.Advocate Mr.D.Mohanty, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, S.C. (for the O.P. Nos.1 to 5) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 29.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 29.07.2025 WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 1 of 10 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner- Company against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing (setting aside) an order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Appeal No.156 of 2012 by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4). 2. The case of the Petitioner is that, an order for mutation of the case land was passed on dated 07.06.1990 (Annexure-2) in Mutation Case Nos. 455/86 and 615/90 by the Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar (O.P. No.5) for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land from the name of the Government to the name of the Petitioner- Company on the basis of the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.189/76 and T.A. No.3/86 respectively. In spite of passing of such order vide Annexure-2 by the Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar (O.P. No.5) in Mutation Case Nos.455/86 and 615/90 for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land from the name of the Government to the name of the WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 2 of 10 Petitioner-Company, the said order was not carried out practically in the office of the Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar for the preparation of new R.o.R. of the case land in the name of the Petitioner company. Then, the Petitioner approached Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar by filing a Misc. Case vide Misc. Case No.17/2003 praying for implementation of the final order dated 07.06.1990 (Annexure-2) passed in Mutation Case No.455/86 and 615/90 for preparation of the R.o.R of the case land in the name of the Petitioner, but, as per order dated 11.07.2003 passed in Misc. Case No.17 of 2003, the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar prepared the R.o.R. of the case land vide Annexure-10 in the name of the Petitioner Company implementing the order dated 07.06.1990 (Annexure-2) passed in Mutation Case No.455/86 and 615/90. 3. Subsequent thereto, no party to the Mutation Case Nos.455/86 and 615/90 and Misc. Case No.17 of 2003 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4) vide Mutation Appeal No.156/12 challenging the order dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure-5) passed in Misc. Case No.17/2003 by WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 3 of 10 the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar without challenging the final order dated 07.06.1990 (Annexure-2) passed in Mutation Case No.455/86 and 615/90 by the Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar (O.P. No.5). 4. After hearing, the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4) allowed that Mutation Appeal No.156/12 filed by no party to the Misc. Case No.17 of 2003 and set aside to the order dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure-5) passed in Misc. Case No.17/2003 by the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar as per its order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Appeal No. 156/12. 5. Then, on the basis of such order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Appeal No. 156/12 by the Sub- Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4), the R.o.R. (Annexure-10) of the case land was corrected from the name of the Petitioner to the name of the Government. 6. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached Collector, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) filing R.P. Case No.42/15 against such order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Appeal No.156/12, but, the Collector, Cuttack (O.P. No.3) did not entertain the same WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 4 of 10 expressing lack of jurisdiction and dismissed that R.P. Case No.42/15 on dated 26.08.2015 (Annexure-3). Then, the Petitioner approached the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) challenging the order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Appeal No.156/12 by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4) filing O.S.S. Case No.268/2015, but, as per order dated 20.07.2018 (Annexure-4) passed in O.S.S. Case No.268/2015, the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) dismissed that O.S.S. Case No.268/2015 expressing that, he lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same. 7. So, without getting any way, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Appeal No.156/12 by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4). 8. Heard only from the learned Sr. Advocate for the Petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 5, as none appeared from the side of the O.P. Nos.6 to 11 for participating in the hearing of this writ petition. WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 5 of 10 9. The learned Standing Counsel objected to the prayers of the Petitioner-Company in this writ petition contending that, as the Misc. Case No.17 of 2003 was filed by the Petitioner, 13 years after passing of the order in Mutation Case No.455/86 and 615/90, for which, the impugned order passed by the Sub- Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4) in Mutation Appeal No.156/12 cannot be held as illegal. 10. It appears from the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Appeal No.156/12 by the Sub- Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4) that, the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4) has set aside the order dated 11.07.2003 passed in Misc. Case No.17/2003 by the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar assigning the following reasons i.e., "before correction of the R.o.R. on the strength of the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 189/76 and T.A. No.3/86, the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar should have brought the fact to the notice of the Collector, Cuttack for further follow up action, for which, the order passed in Misc. Case No.17/2003 is impugned and hereby set aside. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar is directed to move the Collector, Cuttack for clarification before Correction of the R.o.R". WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 6 of 10 11. So, According to the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.4), the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar should not have passed the order dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure-5) in Misc. Case No.17 of 2003 for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land from the name of the Government to the name of the Petitioner-Company on the basis of the order dated 07.06.1990 passed in Mutation Case Nos.455/86 and 615/90 (which was passed on the strength of judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 189/76 and T.A. No.3/86). 12. Now, the question arises, when a Tahasildar will correct a R.o.R on the basis of the order passed in a mutation case like Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar, whether consultation of Tahasildar with Collector is required under law for such correction? 13. On this aspect, It has been clarified in the provisions of law envisaged under Rule 34 of the Orissa Survey Settlement Rules, 1962 and Para No.24 of the Odisha Mutation Mannual that, "the Tahasildar is legally bound to correct the R.o.R. of the case land passing order in a mutation case on the basis of the decree of the Civil Court without consulting anybody including Collector". WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 7 of 10 14. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
Legal Reasoning
In cases between Dr.Gati Krisna Misra Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2002 (1) OLR 69 & Smt. Manjubala Pattanayak Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2001 (1) OLR 530 that, It is the duty of the revenue authority including the Tahasildar to act according to the decision of the Civil Court, even though, the said decree is ex- parte unless and until that decree is set aside. 15. So, in view of the provisions of law envisaged under Rule 34 of the O.S.S. Rules, 1962 and in Para No.24 of the Odisha Mutation Manual coupled with the ratio of the decisions referred to (supra), the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack had no authority under law to set aside the order dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure-5) passed in Misc. Case No.17 of 2003 by the Additional Tahasildar, Tangi, Choudwar on the ground that, the Additional Tahasildar had not brought the fact to the notice of the Collector for correction of R.o.R. of the case land. Because, the law does not authorize any Tahasildar or Additional Tahasildar for making any consultation with the Collector for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land in a mutation case. 16. Therefore, the above observations made in the Para No.3 of the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) in Mutation WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 8 of 10 Appeal No.156 of 2012 by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack in setting aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2003 (Annexure-5) passed in Misc. Case No.17/2003 by the Additional Tahasildar is liable to be quashed. 17. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner-Company. The same must succeed. 18. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed on contest. 19. The impugned order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Appeal No.156 of 2012 by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack (O.P. No.4) is quashed. Consequently, In view of the quashing of the order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexue-1) passed by the Sub-Collector, Sadar, Cuttack, the Annexure-11 is also quashed. 20. Due to the quashing of the Annexure-11, the previous R.o.R. vide (Annexure-10) in the name of the Petitioner-Company is restored to its original position as it was prior to its correction.
Decision
21. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 9 of 10 22. Registry is to send back the records of W.P.C. No.2196 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.2892 of 2018 (those were attached with this writ petition only for the purpose of reference) to the respective assigned Benches. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 29.07.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:27:38 WP(C) No.13662 of 2018 Page 10 of 10