Writ petition directed Tahasildar, Jatni to consider application for impleadment and provide hearing opportunity to petitioners in Mutation Case No.3777 of 2012, without expressing opinion on merits.
Tahasildar, Jatni directed to consider impleadment application filed within two weeks and grant hearing opportunity to petitioners.
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.4942 of 2020
Heard Mr. P.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties 1 to 4.
The petitioners in this writ petition seek to assail the order dated 20.06.2017 (Annexue-1) passed by the SubCollector, Bhubaneswar in Mutation Appeal No.267 of 2016 whereby he remitted the matter to the Tahasildar, Jatni-opposite party no.3 for fresh adjudication of Mutation Case No.3777 of 2012.
Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the predecessor of the petitioners was the recorded tenant of the land in question, the opposite party no.5 without impleading them as parties, filed Mutation Case No.3777 of 2012 which was dismissed. Assailing the same, the opposite party no.5 preferred Mutation Appeal No.267 of 2016, which was disposed of by the SubCollector, Bhubaneswar vide order under Annexure-1 setting aside the order passed in Mutation Case No.3777 of 2012 and remitting the matter back to the Tahasildar, Jatni for fresh adjudication of the mutation case. It is his submission that the petitioners are necessary parties to the mutation case. But neither they have been impleaded as parties in mutation case nor they have been served with any notice. Thus, they apprehend that the Tahasildar, Jatni may not give any opportunity of hearing to them. Hence, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for a
2
direction to the Tahasildar, Jatni to give them an opportunity of hearing at the time of adjudication of the mutation case.
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, submits that since the petitioners claim that the land was recorded in the name of their predecessor, they are necessary parties to the mutation case and should be given an opportunity of hearing.
Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition with a direction that in the event the petitioners file an application to be impleaded as parties to Mutation Case No.3777 of 2012 before the Tahasildar, Jatni-opposite party no.3 within a period of two weeks hence, he shall do well to consider the same and give them an opportunity to file their objection and have their say in the matter. The Tahasildar, Jatni-opposite party no.3 may act upon filing of the application, as aforesaid along with an authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of the High Court of Orissa.
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
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, who claim the land was in their predecessor's name, are necessary parties to the mutation case and entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the Tahasildar.
Whether the High Court can direct the Tahasildar to consider an application for impleadment and grant hearing rights to the petitioners in the pending mutation case.
Petitioners
State-opposite parties 1 to 4
Tahasildar, Jatni-opposite party no.3
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
