The Writ Court held that the petitioners challenging a mutation order should avail the efficacious statutory remedy under Rule 42 of the Orissa Survey & Settlement Rules, 1962, particularly before approaching a competent authority in a recall application.
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.9280 of 2021
2
10.1 As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID19 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 25th March,2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
……..……………………
K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
jm
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the Tahasildar's mutation order is maintainable in view of available statutory remedy.
Whether the petitioners should be allowed to file an application for recall of the order under Rule 43.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alekh Chandra Rath and another –v- Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and othersReferred¶8
Alekh Chandra Rath and another –v- Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and others reported in 1989 (II) OLR-135
Petitioners
State-opposite party nos.1 to 3
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
