Sarita Swain Vs Tahasildar, Bbsr

given by the O.P. No.2 to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.1) for correction of the record of the case land to the name of the petitioner under ‘Sthitiban’ status reflecting the kisam of the same as ‘Gharabari’ in place of ‘Talia’.

¶21

Thereafter, in compliance to the direction given by the O.P. No.2 in its above order dated 07.11.2024 passed in O.S.S. Case No.642 of 2018, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar initiated a mutation case vide Mutation Case No.22886 of 2024 and in the first hour on dated 03.12.2024, he (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) allowed that Mutation Case No.22886 of 2024, but in the 2^nd hour, he (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) recalled that order and kept the record and status of the case land as it was prior to its correction.

¶22

For which, without getting any way, the petitioner challenged the said order of Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar filing this writ petition praying for quashing the same.

¶23

3 . I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State.

¶24

4 . This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Tahasildar/Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for the implementation of the order of the O.P. No.2.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

5 . The law relating to the maintainability of the like nature writ petition for directing the Tahasildar like O.P. No.1 for the implementation of his higher authority like O.P. No.2 has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the decision between Jayamma & Ors. Vrs. Deputy Commissioner, Hassan Dist., Hassan & Ors. reported in III (2013) CLT 94 (SC) that,

¶27

“ if Subordinate Authority of the Government does not act in terms of the directions or instructions issued by superior authority, then in such a situation, it is not for the High Court to compel the Subordinate Authority of the Government to comply the instructions or directions issued by the Superior Authority. Because, High Court is not the executing forum of instructions issued by the Superior Authority of the Government to its Subordinate Officer. So, as per law, it is the duty of the Superior Authority of the Government (who passed the order) to see the implementation of his/her own order properly. ”

¶28

6 . So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the

¶29

above decision of the Apex Court to this matter at hand, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) by filing an application annexing the certified copy of this Judgment for implementation of its final order dated 07.11.2024 passed in O.S.S. Case No.642 of 2018 by the said O.P. No.2 (Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack) and in case of non-response to such application by the

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

O.P. No.2, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court seeking

¶32

appropriate relief for the non-response to the same by the O.P. No.2.

¶33

7 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶34

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

¶35

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 11.12.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer