The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24613 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Hardhik Routray …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner - Mr. Pravash Chandra Jena, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :23.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.09.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the order of rejection to the Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 of the petitioner passed on dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure- 9) by the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop, Puri (O.P. No.3). 2.
Facts
The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner had filed Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 before the Tahasildar, Gop praying for mutation of the purchased land of the petitioner in Mouza Batalibhuan under Khata No.11, Plot No.131 to the name of the petitioner on the basis of the Page 1 of 11 registered sale deed dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-1) executed in favour of the petitioner by the land owner of the said land. The status of the purchased land of the petitioner under Khata No.11, Plot No.131 in Mouza Batalibhuan under Puri Sadar P.S. is under sthitiban status. At the time of purchase, the said land was also under the sthitiban satwa/status of the vendor of the petitioner. After registration of the Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 by the Tahasildar, Gop on the application of the petitioner for correction of R.o.R. of Khata No.11 Plot No.131 from the name of the vendor of the petitioner to the name of the petitioner, the Tahasildar, Gop transferred that Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 to the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop for its consideration and disposal. The Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3.) rejected to the Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 of the petitioner through the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) assigning the reasons that, “perused all documents presented by the petitioner and joint verification report by R.I. and Forest Department and others. As the land is under contested reasons, hence it cannot be disposed of directly as per letter No.10186 dated 24.03.2021 of R & DM Deptt. Hence, necessary procedure is followed as per direction of Hon’ble High Court, Mutation Manual and O.S. & S. Rules, 1962. On the basis of joint verification, it is stated that, the land falls under core area of Balukhanda-Konark wild life sanctuary, also as per 3rd Monitoring Committee, 4th Monitoring Page 2 of 11 Committee, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Joint Verification Letter No.64 dated 14.07.2025 office of the R.I., Chhaitana, Forest Department and others, I am inclined to disallow the case. Hence, rejected.” 3. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order of rejection to the Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 of the petitioner passed on dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) by the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3), the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) on the ground that, in fact, Mouza of the case land i.e. Batalibhuan under Puri Sadar P.S. in the district of Puri is not coming within the limit of sanctuary and Eco-Sensitive Zone as per the notification of the Government and the case land is beyond the limit of sanctuary and Eco- Sensitive Zone, for which, there was no impediment under law to allow the Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 of the petitioner for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land to the name of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that, there was/is no prohibition under law for correction of R.o.R. of the sthitiban land like the case land on the basis of the purchase through the registered sale deed from the rightful owner. For which, the O.P. No.3 should not have rejected the Page 3 of 11 application for mutation vide Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 of the petitioner as per the impugned order vide Annexure-9. 4.
Legal Reasoning
and when there is no dispute in this matter regarding the ownership and possession of the petitioner over the case land and when the Annexure-9 itself is showing about the purchase and possession of the petitioner over the case land and when the land of the petitioner has not been acquired lawfully by the Government, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, the application for mutation of the petitioner should not have been rejected through the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) by the O.P. No.3 indirectly questioning the title of the petitioner in the case land, which is beyond the jurisdiction of O.P. No.3 as per law. 9. The Notification of the Government available in the Record in nowhere prohibiting the mutation of the land in favour of the land owner on the basis of possession, but only there is restriction about the conversion of the status of the land and there is no document on behalf of the State through Notification about the inclusion of Mouza of the case land i.e. batalibhuan under Puri Sadar P.S. within the limit of sanctuary and Eco-Sensitive Zone. 10. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, it is the right of every land owner like the petitioner to mutate Page 9 of 11 the purchased land to the name of the petitioner through mutation case and when it is the duty of the Tahasildars/Revenue Officers including the Addl. Tahsildars like O.P. No.3 to allow the application for mutation of the land owner in possession purchased through undisputed registered sale deed and when the petitioner had applied for mutation of the purchased land of the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-1) on the basis of ownership and possession, then at this juncture, the O.P. No.3 should not have rejected its Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 through the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9). For which, the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure -9) passed by the O.P. No.3 cannot be sustainable under law. 11. When it is held above that, the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the O.P. No.3 is not sustainable under law, the same is liable to be quashed.
Arguments
I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the O.Ps. 5. It is the settled propositions of law that, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The private land of any person cannot be the property of State automatically, without lawful acquisition of the same and without payment of adequate compensation for the same to the property owner (land owner). On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions of the Apex Court:- (i) In a case between P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vrs. Revamma and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 (SC) 1753 that, as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950, property right is not only the constitutional right, but also human right. The State Government cannot deprive any person enjoying the property. For any illegal deprivation to the rightful owner in enjoying the property by the State, the State will be liable to pay damages. (Para 23) (ii) In a case between Vidya Devi Vrs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020 (I) OLR (SC) 366 that, the right to private property cannot be deprived without due process of law and without payment of just and fair compensation. (Para 10.1) Page 4 of 11 (iii) In a case between Yerikala Sunkalamma & another Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue and others decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4311 of 2025 {arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3324 of 2015 (decided on 24.03.2025)} (Para No.124) that, as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The property of a person cannot be the property of State automatically without lawful acquisition of the same and without payment adequate compensation for the same to the property owner (land owner). (iv) In a case between Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar Vrs State of Gujarat and another reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596 that, as per Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. If there is no law, there is no deprivation. 6. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner has purchased the property in Mouza Batalibhuan under Khata No.11 Plot No.131 from the recorded sthitiban tenant through registered sale deed dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-1) and the transfer of property is the inherent right of the land owner and when the interest of the case land under Khata No.11, Plot No.131 in Mouza Batalibhuan has already been transferred as per law in favour of the petitioner through the execution and registration of the undisputed registered sale deed dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-1) in favour Page 5 of 11 of the petitioner by the sthitiban land owner and when the said land has not been acquired as per law by the Government from the petitioner through proper land acquisition proceedings and when the ownership and possession of the case land is with the petitioner, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3) should not have rejected to the Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 of the petitioner for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land under Khata No.11 Plot No.131 to the name of the petitioner through the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9). 7. As per law, mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of fixing responsibility of a person, who is in actual possession of a land to pay land revenue and other dues to the Government and mostly mutation cases are decided on the basis of actual possession over the property in question. So, mutation orders are passed only to determine liability to pay land revenue. Mutation order passed in favour of a person on the basis of registered sale deed cannot be set aside or recalled, unless registered sale deed executed in favour of the said person is set aside in any legal proceeding. Page 6 of 11 Title of the property can only be decided by a competent Civil Court, not by Revenue Authorities in Mutation proceedings. The collection of rent is to be made from the person in possession and the person in possession has his liability to pay rent. As per Para No.47 of the Orissa mutation Manual, mutation of the landed properties is to be made on the basis of documents of transfer of title as well as possession under the color of title. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Ahmad Bux and others Vrs. UP Zila Adhikari/Asst. Collector (Ist), Sitapur and others reported in 2021 (3) Civ.C.C. 228 (Allahabad) that, mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of fixing responsibility of the person in actual possession of the land to pay land revenue and other dues to the Government and mostly decided on the basis of actual possession over the property in question. (Para 6) (ii) In a case between Shri Krashan Vrs. Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Div., Lucknow & Ors reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C. 116 (Allahabad) that, mutation orders are passed only to determine liability to pay land revenue to the Government. (Para 12) (iii) In a case between Mithilesh Devi Vrs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 (3) Civ.C.C. 351 (Allahabad) that, mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed cannot be recalled/set aside unless the Page 7 of 11 registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is set aside in any legal proceeding. (Para 10) (iv) In a case between Jitendra Singh Vrs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C.29 (SC) that, title of the property is concerned, can only be decided by a competent Civil Court, not by Revenue Authority in a mutation proceeding. (Para 6.1) (v) In a case between Bhagaban Das and Ors. Vrs. Jagabandhu Jena and Ors. reported in 24 (1958) CLT 345 and in a case between Arjun Samal Vrs. Kailash Chandra Kanungo and others reported in 40 (1974) CLT 294 that, the rent or revenue is collected on the basis of the collection to be made from the person in possession of the property. The revenue authorities look only to the man in possession for his liability to pay rent. 8. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner is the purchaser of the case land through registered sale deed dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-1) from the sthitiban recorded land owner and when the mutation proceedings are only for the purpose of fixing responsibility of the person, who is in actual possession of the land to pay land revenue and other dues to the Government and when mutation cases are to be decided on the basis of actual possession over the properties in question and when the mutation is to be made on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by the land owner, unless and until the said sale deed in favour of the applicant for mutation is set aside in any legal proceeding and Page 8 of 11 when it is the duty of every land owner in possession to pay the land revenue to the Government in his/her name through proper rent receipt
Decision
12. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. 13. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3) in Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 is quashed. Page 10 of 11 14. The matter vide Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Addl. Tahsildar, Gop (O.P. No.3) for preparation of the R.o.R. of the case land in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the documents and materials relating to the ownership and possession of the petitioner on the same permitting the petitioner for its production in disposing of the Mutation Case No.2502 of 2024 within the period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment before the O.P. No.3. 15. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 26.09.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Sep-2025 14:58:31 Page 11 of 11