Allowed¶31

Suria Begum v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Aug 2024WP(C)/15466/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation appeal maintainability; appeal by strangers/outsiders lacking locus and right in land rejected; Sub-Collector Cuttack Sadar remand order (Annexure-4) set aside; Tahasildar mutation case allowed for petitioners as successors of recorded tenants Happy Mohammad and Haji Abdula Jani; OSS Act Section 15(b) revision pending before Commissioner; individual notice/general notice; opportunity of hearing to necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned remand order of the Sub-Collector, Cuttack Sadar dated 17th May 2022 (Annexure-4) set aside; writ petition disposed of as allowed. ¶31

Suria Begum Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned remand order of the Sub-Collector, Cuttack Sadar dated 17th May 2022 (Annexure-4) set aside; writ petition disposed of as allowed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the mutation appeal (Mutation Appeal No.50 of 2022) preferred by Opposite Parties 4 & 5 against the Tahasildar's mutation order is maintainable, given they were not made parties to the mutation proceeding and, per the Petitioners, have no locus therein. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Opposite Parties 4 & 5, being complete outsiders/strangers without any interest in respect of the case land, the appeal preferred by them against the Tahasildar's order is not maintainable.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since no material was produced by Opposite Parties 4 & 5 evidencing any right, they cannot be regarded as necessary parties or persons aggrieved with the order having a right to be heard in the mutation proceeding; the appellate court remanded without enquiring into this aspect.

¶26

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 17th May 2022 of the Sub-Collector under Annexure-4 is set aside.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa (B.P. Routray, J.), W.P.(C) No.15466 of 2022, order dt. 22.08.2024: Mutation Appeal No.50 of 2022 by Opposite Parties 4 & 5 against the Tahasildar's favourable mutation order (Mutation Case No.10588 of 2021) held NOT MAINTAINABLE - the appellants were never parties to the mutation proceeding and, producing no material showing any right in the case land, are 'complete outsiders'/strangers, hence neither necessary nor aggrieved parties entitled to be heard. On that basis the remand order dated 17.05.2022 of the Sub-Collector, Cuttack Sadar (Annexure-4) - which had remanded the matter to the Tahasildar for hearing afresh for want of clarity in individual/general notices - is SET ASIDE and the writ petition disposed of as allowed. Petitioners are successors-in-interest of recorded tenants Happy Mohammad and Haji Abdula Jani; Opposite Party No.6's pending Revision Case No.50 of 2021 under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act questioning the ROR recording was noted but left undisturbed.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 23-Aug-2024 15:24:51

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No.15466 of 2022

¶5

Suria Begum & Ors.

¶6

…. Petitioners

¶7

Mr. B.Bhuyan, Advocate

¶8

-versus-

¶9

State of Odisha and Ors.

¶10

…. Opposite Parties

¶11

Mr. U.K.Sahoo, ASC Mr.P.Patra, Advocate for O.P.4 & 5 Mr.M.Dasburma, Advocate for O.P.6

¶12

CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

22.08.2024

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

Heard Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.Dasburma, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.6, Mr.Patra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 4 & 5 and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State-Opposite Parties.

¶19

The order of the Appellate Authority i.e. Sub-Collector, Cuttack Sadar dated 17^th May 2022 passed in Mutation Appeal No.50 of 2022 is challenged in the writ petition.

¶20

The writ Petitioners filed Mutation Case No.10588 of 2021 before the Tahasildar which was allowed in their favour. Present Opposite Parties 4 & 5 then preferred the mutation appeal and in the appeal the Sub-Collector by holding that there was no clarity

¶21

Page 1 of 3

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 23-Aug-2024 15:24:51

¶24

in issuing individual notice and general notice, has remanded the matter for hearing afresh to the Tahasildar.

¶25

Admittedly, Opposite Parties 4 & 5 who were the Appellants before the Sub-Collector, were not made party in the mutation proceeding before the Tahasildar. According to present Petitioners who are the Applicants in the mutation case, these Opposite Parties 4 & 5 do not have any locus in the mutation proceeding and to maintain the appeal against the order of the Tahasildar.

¶26

Present Petitioners are the successor in interest of one Happy Mohammad and Haji Abdula Jani, the recorded tenants of the case land under Annexure-1. It is submitted by Opposite Party No.6 that he has preferred Revision Case No.50 of 2021 before the Commissioner under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act questioning recording of the ROR in the name of Happy Mohammad and Haji Abdula Jani, and the same is pending adjudication till date. However, no right in respect of Opposite Parties 4 & 5 is brought on record nor urged by them in respect of the case land. They are found complete outsiders without having any interest in respect of the case land. So the appeal preferred by the strangers against the order of the Tahasildar is definitely not maintainable and the Appellate Court without enquiring into such aspect has remanded the matter to the Tahasildar holding that opportunity of hearing has not been granted to necessary parties. In absence of any material produced by Opposite Parties 4 & 5, they cannot be said as necessary parties or aggrieved with the order having a right to be heard in the mutation proceeding. They

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 23-Aug-2024 15:24:51

¶30

being the strangers, as stated earlier, the appeal at their instance is held not maintainable and accordingly, the impugned order dated 17^th May 2022 of the Sub-Collector under Annexure-4 is set aside.

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as allowed.

¶32

An urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶33

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶34

S.Das

¶35

Page 3 of 3

Suria Begum v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suria Begum v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praphul Kumar Moharana Vs Union of India

Good News Society, Cuttack Vs Collector, Bhadrak

Prem Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Harekrushna Maharana Vs Union of India

M/S. Aryans Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bbsr Vs State of Odisha