The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a mutation order. It observed that the grievance regarding the order must be redressed by the Appellate Authority via the appropriate appeal under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962.
None granted; petitioner directed to approach Appellate Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.3822 of 2020
Heard Mr. P.C. Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.
Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to file certified copy of the impugned order dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure-6) passed by the Tahasildar, Darpan-opposite party no.3 in Mutation Case No.991 of 2018.
On 05.11.2020, on the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned for a period of two weeks to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to get the certified copy of the impugned order under Annexure-6. In view of the order proposed to be passed in this case, this Court without granting further time to learned counsel for the petitioner to file certified copy of the impugned order, proceeds with the matter.
Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the Revenue Inspector, Chhatia has submitted a report disallowing the prayer of the opposite party nos.5 to 9 for correction of the R.O.R. in their names, the Tahasildar,Darpan-opposite party no.3 without considering the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Chhatia allowed the mutation case. He further submits that once the Revenue Inspector, Chhatia submits a report to drop the said mutation case, the Tahasildar,Darpan-opposite party no.3 has no jurisdiction to allow the mutation case. He, therefore,
2
prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-6.
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, submits that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner can be effectively gone into by the Appellate Authority in the event an appeal is filed against the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the order passed by the Tahasildar,Darpan-opposite party no.3 under Rule 34 of the Odisha Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962 without considering the report of the concerned Revenue Inspector, Chhatia, which can be effectively redressed by the Appellate Authority after verification of relevant records.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may move the Appellate Authority under Rule 42 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962.
Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
……..……………………
K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
jm
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a mutation order disregarding the Revenue Inspector's report is maintainable when grievance can be redressed by the Appellate Authority.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State-opposite parties
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
