Disposed¶20

Narmada Kumari Praharaj @ Narmada Praharaj v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Apr 2025WP(C)/7985/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: alternative remedy; writ disposed with direction to appeal; mutation case dropped; Record of Rights; Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules 1962 (Rules 41, 42, 12); Mutation Manual Chapter-IV Para-92; condonation of delay; Tahasildar-cum-Mutation Officer Berhampur; W.P.(C) No.7985 of 2025; Justice M.S. Sahoo; order dated 15.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner permitted to file the statutory appeal within three weeks with a condonation-of-delay petition, and the appellate authority directed to consider condoning the delay and adjudicate on merits. ¶20

Narmada Kumari Praharaj @ Narmada Praharaj Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2025 dropping Mutation Case No.4921 of 2024 and rejecting the claim for recording of name in the Record of Rights, should be relegated to the statutory appeal remedy under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 read with the Mutation Manual instead of relief in writ jurisdiction.

¶18

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner files the appeal before the appellate authority prescribed under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 within three weeks along with a petition for condonation of delay, the delay may be considered for condonation.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

On such appeal being filed with the condonation petition, the appellate authority shall consider condoning the delay, take up the matter on merits and proceed in accordance with law.

¶19

Key takeaways

The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or the contentions of the parties.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.7985 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, M.S. Sahoo, J., order dated 15.04.2025) — Narmada Kumari Praharaj @ Narmada Praharaj v. State of Odisha & Others. The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.02.2025 of the Tahasildar-cum-Mutation Officer, Berhampur in Mutation Case No.4921 of 2024, whereby the mutation case was dropped and the claim for recording of the petitioner's name in the Record of Rights was rejected. Noting the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Rules 41 & 42 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 read with Chapter-IV, Paragraph-92 of the Mutation Manual, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that if the petitioner files the appeal before the appellate authority within three weeks along with a petition for condonation of delay, the authority shall consider condoning the delay and take up the matter on merits in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the parties.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.7985 of 2025

¶3

Narmada Kumari Praharaj @ …. Petitioner Narmada Praharaj

¶4

Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

Order No.

ORDER

15.04.2025

(Hybrid Mode)

01.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶16

It is submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the opposite party no.4 : Tahasaildar-cum-Mutation Officer, Berhampur in Mutation Case No.4921 of 2024. It is submitted that while passing the order, the authority has not considered the material on record and not applied the provisions of law as would be applicable and dropped the mutation case thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner to record his name in the Record of Rights.

¶17

Learned Additional Standing Counsel in response refers to Rules 41 & 42 of the Odisha Survey

¶18

& Settlement Rules, 1962 and submits that the petitioner has a more efficacious remedy in form of appeal as provided in Rule 42 read with the executive instructions, i.e., Mutation Manual Chapter-IV, Para-92.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 12 the petitioner was to move an appeal before the appellate authority within thirty days from the date of order, i.e., 04.02.2025. The petitioner has pursued the writ remedy in good faith. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel, considering the order passed by the Tahasildar-cumMutation Officer, Berhampur dated 04.02.2025, applying the provisions of law, i.e., Rules 41 & 42 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 read with Chapter-IV, Paragraph-92 of the Mutation Manual and considering the fact that the petitioner to establish his right to property has filed the mutation case, it is directed that if the petitioner will file the appeal before the appellate authority as prescribed under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 within three weeks along with a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the authority shall do well to consider the same to condone the delay and take up the matter on merit and proceed in accordance with law for adjudication.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

¶22

The authority shall act upon production of

¶23

website copy of this order.

¶24

It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding merits of the case of the contentions of the parties in any manner whatsoever.

¶25

amit

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 17-Apr-2025 20:31:24

¶28

Narmada Kumari Praharaj @ Narmada Praharaj v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narmada Kumari Praharaj @ Narmada Praharaj 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

Rama Krushna Mahankuda Vs State of Odisha

Sangram Keshari Sahu Vs Binita Senapati Oes, Deo, Ganjam

Rashmita Behera Vs State of Odisha

Jagadish Prasad Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sudhansu Sekhar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Jambue Oram Vs State of Odisha