High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.18036 of 2018 Bajrang Lal Agraw grawal …. Petitioner Pe , Advocate Mr. B.B. Mishra, Ad -Versus- State of Odisha & a & others …. Opposite Mr. B. Naya site parties ayak, AGA CORA MR. J RAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 16.12.2024 Order No. 09. 1. Heard M d Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitio itioner and Mr. Nayak, learn arned AGA for the State. 2. Instant w nt writ petition is filed by the petitioner challen llenging the impugned order der dated 16th August, 2015 under Annexure-5 5 passed in connection w with RMA (M.C.) No. 2 of 2016 by learn arned Sub- Collector, Boudh udh, namely, opposite party No.2 on the he grounds stated therein. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mish ishra, learned counsel for the petitioner subm ubmits that the petitioner a r acquired interest over the schedule land nd after a statutory sale, h he being highest bidder and while claiming ing so, he refers to Annexu exure-2. It is further submitted that after such such sale in favour of the pet petitioner, mutation was applied for but the sa same was disallowed vide de Annexure-3 to which an appeal was filed ed and the same was dispo isposed of as per Annexure-5 by order dat dated 24th November, 2016 016. It is contended that the petitioner having ing the title over the schedu edule land, mutation in respect thereof, shou hould have Pa age 1 of 4 been allowed by by the authorities below but it has been follo ollowed by the impugned or order i.e. Annexure-5. In support of the con contention that the mutati tation authority could not have disallowe owed such mutation vis-à-v vis the schedule land, Mr. Mishra, learned ed counsel refers to the Cir Circular of the Government in Revenue & & Disaster Management De Department as at flag-C dated 7th May, 201 2018. That apart, Mr. Mish ishra, learned counsel cited the following d g decisions, such as, Pravaka akar Swain & others Vrs. Tahasildar, Aul & l & others MANU/OR/0838 838/2010 and Harihara Mohapatra & oth others Vrs. Commissioner r of Land Records & Settlement and nd others MANU/OR/0252 252/1998 to contend that correction of RoR in R in respect of any such facts s existing prior to the publication of RoR co could not have been take aken cognizance of by opposite party No.2 o.2, while dismissing the ap appeal and confirming the order of opposi osite party No.3, hence, the therefore, such decision is erroneous and no not legally tenable. 4. Mr. Nay Nayak, learned AGA for the State referring ing to the counter affidavit avit filed through opposite party Nos.2 & 3 3 submits that the land did did not belong to the Leather Corporation a n as it was recorded in the n he name of Development Department, Tannery nery situate over Sabik khata ata No. 4, plot No. 36 measuring an area of A of Ac. 2.58 decimals and wh while stating so, he refers to Annexure-A/3 ser series. The correspondences ces having taken place inter se Departments a ts and with Bank have also lso been referred to by Mr. Nayak, learned ed AGA to claim that the he Leather Corporation did not have the he title to mortgage the sch schedule land, which ultimately led to the disp disposal by an auction. It is t is contended that Leather Corporation is not not a party hence, therefore, ore, in absence of the Corporation, the legalit ality of the impugned order er i.e. Annexure-5 cannot be questioned. Page 2 of 4 Pa 5. As per th r the Circular dated 7th May, 2018 of the Gove overnment, it is made to rev reveal that rejection of mutation on the presu resumption that the sale dee deed relating to a particular transaction is fra fraudulent and void thereb reby cannot be a ground as such. In Pravaka akar Swain (supra), as the case law is referred to by Mr. Mishra, ra, learned counsel, this Cou Court had the occasion to consider the jurisdi isdiction of the Tahasildar w r with regard to correction of RoR in terms rms of the provisions of th f the Odisha Mutation Manual, 1962. In In fact, in Harihara Mohap hapatra case, it was held that correction of of RoR in respect of a factu actual position which was existing prior to pub publication of RoR was no not permissible and the same is to be h held and concluded as per per Rule 34 of the Odisha Survey & Settlemen ent Rules. Admittedly, the R he RoR as at Annexure-1 reveals that the sched hedule land was with the Le Leather Corporation and thereafter, it defa efaulted in making repayme yment and after the order of the Debt R t Recovery Tribunal in O.A. .A. No. 38 of 1998, the same was disposed o d of by an auction sale and and a sale certificate was issued in favour our of the petitioner, he b e being the highest bidder and having purch rchased it. Subsequent to th the sale and purchase by the petitioner in re respect of the land in que question, the petitioner applied for mutation ion and as earlier stated, it it was denied and ultimately, confirmed in in appeal vide Annexure-5 5. Referring to Annexure-A/3 series, it is m is made to suggest that suc such a recording was with reference to th the Sabik settlement but h having regard to the ratio decided by this C is Court in Harihar Mohapa apatra (supra), it has to be held that the the factual position as was existing prior to publication of RoR i.e. Ann Annexure-1 could not have ve been taken judicial notice of by the au authorities below, while de denying mutation in respect of the land in q n question. So, therefore, c , considering the objection of the State t e that the Page 3 of 4 Pa schedule land w was recorded with the Development Depa epartment, Tannery but in v in view of Annexure-1, the same having been een settled with the Leather ther Corporation and thereafter, the petition ioner since purchased it in in an auction and was issued with a sale ce certificate, regard being ha had to the settled position of law discussed ssed herein above and in pa particular, with reference to the decision in in Harihar Mohapatra, a v a view which has been reiterated in the he case of Pravakar Swain ain, the Court reaches at a conclusion t that the impugned order der under Annexure-5 is liable to be set aside w de with the mutation allowe wed in favour of the petitioner in respect of of the case land. 6. 7. Hence, i e, it is ordered. In the e result, the writ petition stands allowed ed. As a necessary corolla ollary, the impugned order under Annexure-5 in RMA (M.C.) No. 2 o 2 of 2016 is hereby set aside with a direc irection to opposite party N y No.3 to allow mutation in favour of the pe e petitioner vis-à-vis the sche chedule land at the earliest preferably within a in a period of eight weeks fr s from the date of receipt of a copy of this orde rder. 8. A certifi es. rtified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: Ohc, Cuttack Date: 18-Dec-2024 17:21:56 Page 4 of 4 Pa