Dismissed

Arakhita Sahu v. Collector, Kalahandi

Orissa HC22 Jun 2021WP(C)/14183/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revisional order denying mutation for land previously vested to the State as Ceiling Surplus. The court held mutation cannot proceed while the ceiling surplus order stands valid and dismissed the application, noting the petitioner had delay of over a decade.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is disposed of without any relief to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to pursue appropriate remedy for redressal of grievance in the competent court.

Arakhita Sahu Vs Collector, Kalahandi — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO.14183 OF 2021

¶2

22.06.2021

¶3

This matter is taken up by virtual mode. Heard.

¶4

The present writ application has been filed challenging the revisional order passed by the Collector, Kalahandi in a revision for mutation. From the fact of the case, it is found that, vide Exchange Deed No.605 of 1954, dated 24.05.1954, Kasturi Kamodini Devi, wife of Pratap Kesari Deo had exchanged Ac4.020 decimal of land with Balaram Sahu, Narasingha Sahu & Chandrasekhar Sahu, sons of Gangadhar Sahu and that exchange has been reflected in the Hal Settlement of 1955-56. In the Exchange Deed, there is no mentioning of Khata number and plot number of the land. In the year 2013, the petitioner applied for mutation for Ac5.54 decimal of land out of Plot No.832 under Khata No.10 of Bhawanipatna town as per the current settlement 1955-56. From the record, it is further revealed that, in Ceiling Case No.210 of 1975, Ac5.54 decimals of land, out of Plot No.832 in Khata No.10, has been vested to the State as Ceiling Surplus land. Subsequently, the land has been recorded in favour of Government Khata No.189/70 (Anabadi) of MouzaBhawanipatna. The petitioner has filed the mutation

¶5

case in the year 2013 after so many years and the cause of such delay is stated to be ignorance and absence of notice to him. Such evasive plea cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶6

Logically and legally, unless the order in Ceiling Case No.210 of 1975 is set-aside, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in a mutation case inasmuch as the mutation cannot go beyond the order passed by the competent authority in Ceiling Case No.210 of 1975. Further, the mutation case has been filed after much delay, when the order of Ceiling Case No.210 of 1975 is staring at the face of the petitioner.

¶7

In view of such fact, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tahasildar, Kalahandi, the order passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhawanipatna in Mutation Appeal and the order passed by the Collector, Kalahandi in Mutation Revision case.

¶8

The petitioner, if so advised, may pursue appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance.

¶9

With the aforesaid observation, the writ application is disposed of.

¶10

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶11

…………………………. C.R. Dash, J.

¶12

Subha

Arakhita Sahu v. Collector, Kalahandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arakhita Sahu v. Collector, Kalahandi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananta Singha @ Singh Vs State of Odisha

Debendra Sahu @ Ratan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Moheswar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Parakhita Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Soudamini Parida Vs the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha

Kasti Turuk Vs State of Odisha