Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.32016 of 2023 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Manoj Kumar Behera .......…… Petitioner -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others …….. Opposite Parties Amiya Ranjan Choudhury and others ------- Petitioners WP(C) No.30619 of 2023 -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others …….. Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : Mr.S.Patnaik, Advocate Mr.S.Mohanty, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr.A.P. Bose, Advocate (for O.P. No.4)
Legal Reasoning
Ms.J.Sahoo, A.S.C. (for O.P. Nos.1 to 3) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 14.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025 A.C. Behera, J. Since in both the writ petitions, the Petitioners thereof have prayed for quashing the notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in reference to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022,
Decision
then, both the writ petitions are taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common judgment. 2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 in both the writ petitions. 3. The case of the Petitioners in their respective writ petitions are that, they are the owners of the case land. The R.o.Rs of the same stand in their names. They (Petitioners) are in possession over the case land constructing boundary walls around the same, but, surprisingly, on dated 11.09.2023, they Page 2 of 9 (Petitioners) received notices (Annexure-3) from the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in reference to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 to handover possession of the case lands to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra). On enquiry, they (Petitioners) came to know after obtaining the entire order sheets of the Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 that, the said Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 filed by the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) was rejected on merit by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on dated 07.08.2023 and accordingly, the Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 was disposed of finally on that day i.e. on 07.08.2023 being rejected. Thereafter, on the basis of the judgment and decree passed on dated 16.08.2019 in R.F.A. No.88 of 2016 (Annexure-5) by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Court No.II, Bhubaneswar in favour of the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) without impleading the Petitioners in the said R.F.A. No.88 of 2016, at the instance of O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra), the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar restarted to the above Page 3 of 9 disposed of Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 and issued separate notices to the Petitioners on dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) directing them (Petitioners) to handover possession of their respective case land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) without fail. After receiving such notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure- 3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the Petitioners filed these writ petitions praying for quashing the said notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the Additional, Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in reference to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 on the following grounds i.e.:- (i) The Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar had no jurisdiction to issue notices on dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) to the Petitioners referring to the disposed of Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 to handover possession of their lands to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra). (ii) When, the R.o.Rs of the case land stands in the name of the Petitioners, they should not have been directed to handover the possession of their respective land to the O.P. No.4 on the basis of the notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued to Page 4 of 9 them by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar. 5. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) vehemently objected to the aforesaid grounds raised by the Petitioners for quashing the notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar contending that, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing these writ petitions instead of challenging the judgment and decree passed in RFA No.88 of 2016 through a second appeal. According to him, when the judgment and decree passed in RFA No.88 of 2016 in respect of the case land is in force, then, as per law, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is bound to respect the said judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in RFA No.88 of 2016 and on the basis of said judgment and decree passed in RFA No.88 of 2016, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar had issued notices on dated 11.09.2023 in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 to the Petitioners for handing over the possession of the case land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) properly. For which, the said notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Page 5 of 9 Bhubaneswar in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 can never be quashed. 6. The notices on dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) were issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to the Petitioners in these writ petitions shows that, the Petitioners are in possession over the case land and the R.o.Rs thereof stand in their names and they (Petitioners) are paying rent for the same. 7. There is no material in the record to show on behalf of the O.Ps about the giving up of any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners before issuance of notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) to them (Petitioners) directing them (Petitioners) to deliver the possession of their respective land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra), even though, undisputedly, they (Petitioners) are in possession over the case land. 8. On this Aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Rattna Oil Mills/Rice Mills Vrs. Paramjit Singh and others reported in 2008 (I) CCC 40 (SC) in Para No.6 that, Page 6 of 9 where, appellants had been entered in the mutation records in respect of the lands in question, they should have been given opportunity of hearing. (ii) In a case between Debaranjan Das and others Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2011 (I) CLR 631 in Para No.8 that, in an application for mutation, the recorded owner as per the settlement Records of Rights is required to be impleaded as a necessary party in the Mutation Case and be given an opportunity of hearing. (iii) In a case between Jagtar Singh and others Vrs. The State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2018 (I) Apex Court Judgment 714 (SC) that, change in the entries as to possession in revenue record without giving notice to the LRs of the persons shown in possession cannot be sustainable under law. The said matter is remitted back to the revenue authorities for hearing afresh giving opportunity to the persons shown in possession. 9. Here in these matters at hand, when there is no material in the record on behalf of the Opposite Parties to show that, prior to issuance of notices on dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) referring to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 to the Petitioners for handing over possession of the respective land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra), they (Petitioners) were not given any opportunity of being heard about the cause/reason for issuance of notices vide Annexure-3 to them for handing over possession of their land, though, the R.o.Rs of the case land stand in their name and when, they (Petitioners) are in possession over their respective lands in question, then at this Page 7 of 9 juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the issuance of notices on dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to the Petitioners for handing over the possession of their respective land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) cannot be sustainable under law. For which, there is justification under law for quashing the impugned notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to the Petitioners in reference to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022. 10. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners. The same must succeed. 11. In result, both the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are allowed . 12. The impugned notices dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-3) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 to the Petitioners are quashed. 13. The Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is directed to hear the matter concerning the issuance of notices vide Page 8 of 9 Annexue-3 to the Petitioners afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) and others, if any. The Petitioners and the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) are at liberty to agitate their all grounds/contentions in support of their respective cases before the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar shall act upon the same as per law. 14. The Parties in both the writ petitions are directed to appear before the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on dated 16.10.2025 and to file the certified copy of this judgment for the purpose of receiving directions of the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar relating to the causes and reasons, which had prompted him (Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) for issuance of notices vide Annexure 3 (those have been quashed in this judgment) to the Petitioners. 15. As such, both the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are disposed of finally. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Sep-2025 17:43:56 Orissa High Court, Cuttack 24th Of September, 2025/ Binayak Sahoo// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge Page 9 of 9