Bijaya Kumar Agrawalla Vs Collector Boudh, Boudh

The said mutation appeal vide R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 was preferred challenging the order dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure-4) passed in Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3).

¶20

The Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 was filed by the Petitioner (who is also the Petitioner in this writ petition) for recording of the properties covered under a will executed by his mother Shanti Devi Agrawalla in his favour.

¶21

The O.P. Nos.5 and 6 are the widow wife and son of the deceased son of Shanti Devi Agrawalla.

¶22

Heard from the learned Sr.counsel for the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.5 and 6 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶23

3. It came out from the submissions of the learned counsels of

¶24

both the sides that, the Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 was filed by the Petitioner (who is also the Petitioner in this writ petition) praying for correction of the R.o.R. of the properties covered under the will to his name executed by his mother Shanti Devi Agrawalla. The genuineness of such will was disputed by the O.P. Nos.5 and 6 of

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

this writ petition before the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3) as well as

¶27

in the appeal before the Sub-Collector, Boudh (O.P. No.2).

¶28

When, the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3) allowed that Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 of the Petitoner in his favour, to which, the O.P. Nos.5 and 6 challenged by preferring Mutation Appeal vide R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 before the Sub-Collector, Boudh (O.P. No.2) and when, the Sub-Collector, Boudh (O.P. No.2) allowed that R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 through the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-5) and set aside to the order dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3), for which, the Petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Collector, Boudh (O.P. No.2) in R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 by filing this writ petition.

¶29

4 . The law relating to mutation, on the basis of a will like this matter at hand has already been clarified earlier in a case between Prasanta Biswanath @ Prasanta Kumar Biswanath Vrs. The State of Odisha, repr. thr. its Collector, Rayagada and another reported in 2025 (I) OLR 798 on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C. (SC) 29 .

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

In the case between Jitendra Singh Vrs. State of Madhya

¶32

Pradesh and others reported in 2021 (4) Civ.C.C. (S.C.) 29 in Para No.5 it has been clarified by the Apex Court that,

¶33

when an application for mutation is filed on the basis of a will, and if any, dispute with respect to the title or genuineness of the will arises, then, the Party, who had applied for mutation on the basis of will shall get his/her rights crystalized by the Civil Court and thereafter on the basis of the decision of the Civil Court, necessary mutation entry can be made.

¶34

So, in view of the aforesaid decisions of this Court and the

¶35

Apex Court, the Revenue Authorities i.e. O.P. Nos.2 and 3 had no jurisdiction for passing any order for mutation on the basis of the will executed by Shanti Devi Agrawalla in favour of the Petitioner, because, the O.P. Nos.5 and 6 had disputed to the title of the said will as well as genuineness thereof.

¶36

For which, the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3) in Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 as well as Sub-Collector, Boudh (O.P No.2) in the mutation appeal vide R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 cannot be sustainable under law.

¶37

Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the said orders passed by the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 through this writ petition filed by the Petitioner for quashing the same and for leaving the Parties to approach the Civil Court for

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

crystallization of their rights on the basis of the will said to have been executed by Shanti Devi Agrawalla in favour of the Petitioner of this writ petition.

¶40

As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The same is to be allowed in part.

¶41

In result, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is allowed in part.

¶42

The order dated 15.04.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the Tahasildar, Boudh (O.P. No.3) in Mutation Case No.714 of 2023 as well as the order dated 08.10.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by the SubCollector, Boudh (O.P No.2) in mutation appeal vide R.M.A. No.10 of 2023 are quashed.

¶43

Liberty is given to the parties to approach the common law forum i.e. Civil Court to get their rights crystalized in respect of the Properties covered under the will said to have been executed by the Shanti Devi Agrawalla in favour of the Petitioner of this writ petition, making it clear that, the Civil Court shall never be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and shall decide the same on merit as per law independently.

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

9. As such, this writ petition filed by the Petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶46

(A.C. Behera), Judge

¶47

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

¶48

17.11.2025/ Binayak Sahoo, Jr.Stenographer

¶49

Signature Not Verified