Circuit Bench Judge K.R. Mohapatra dismissed this writ petition against an order refusing to correct caste and residence entries in a revenue record, holding the entries based on the original sale deed required no correction.
The writ petition against the order refusing correction of mutation entries is dismissed.
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. 1366 OF 2021
The Petitioner in this writ petition assails the order dated 28th December, 2020 (Annexure-5) passed by the Tahasildar, Karanjia in RMC Case No. 16 of 2020.
Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner is ‘Pano’ by caste and she belongs to village ‘Karanjia’, but in the mutation R.O.R., the caste of the Petitioner has been mentioned as ‘Patratanti’ and residence as ‘Kushpada’. Relying upon the R.O.R. prepared in the name of her father and the caste certificate issued in her name as at Annexures-2 and 3 respectively, he submits that recording in the mutation R.O.R. is incorrect. When the said mistake in the mutation R.O.R. in respect of Khata No. 310 of village Ankura came to the notice of the Petitioner, she filed an application for correction of the same and the Tahasildar, Karanjia without considering the R.O.R. published in the name of her father as well as the caste certificate as at Annexures-2 and 3, so also the enquiry report under Annexure-4 has passed the impugned order under Annexure-5, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State submits that entries in the mutation R.O.R. has been made pursuant to the related sale deed in the year, 1993,
2
whereas RMC Case No. 16 of 2020 was filed in the year, 2020. Thus, the Tahasildar, Karanjia has not committed any error in passing the impugned order by refusing the prayer for correction of the entries in the R.O.R.
Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner had initiated the mutation case basing upon the sale deed and taking into consideration the entries in the sale deed, the caste of the Petitioner has been recorded as ‘Patratanti’ and her residence as ‘Kushpada’. The said R.O.R. was published in the year, 1993, whereas the Petitioner after a lapse of 27 years filed RMC Case No. 16 of 2020 for correction of the aforesaid entries. The Tahasildar, Karanjia on verification of the record came to the conclusion that since the R.O.R. has been prepared on the basis of entries made in the related sale deed, the same needs no correction.
In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
................................. K.R. Mohapatra, J.
bks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the tahasildar erred in refusing to correct caste and residence entries in the mutation record which were prepared based on sale deed entries.
Petitioner
State
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
