Niranjan Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Niranjan Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum along with an application for condonation of delay; if such applications are filed within two weeks with a certified copy of the order, they shall be considered in accordance with law by the authority.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-6) of the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar rejecting the petitioner's mutation prayer, on the ground that the land recorded in government anabadi khata with jungle kissam cannot be legally transferred without prior approval from the appropriate authority, calls for interference, particularly in view of the earlier orders confirming the lease and its transfer. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the Mutation Manual, the Court did not go into the merits of the petitioner's submissions and disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum along with an application for condonation of delay.

Key takeaways

If the applications are filed within two weeks from the date of the order along with a certified copy thereof, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the authority.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.9346 of 2025) before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Savitri Ratho, J.) challenging the order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-6) of the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar rejecting the petitioner's prayer for mutation of land on the ground that it stands recorded in government anabadi khata with jungle kissam and cannot be legally transferred without prior approval from the appropriate authority. The petitioner relied on the order dated 30.06.2024 of the A.D.M., Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.434 of 1998 holding Rohit Naik eligible for the 1974 lease, confirmation of the lease sanctioned vide W.L. Case No.2049/75, and establishment of the transfer to Smt. Renuka Patra from whom he purchased. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition since an alternative remedy was available under the Mutation Manual, granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum with an application for condonation of delay; applications filed within two weeks with a certified copy of the order were directed to be considered in accordance with law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.9346 of 2025

Niranjan Mishra

…. Petitioner

Mr.Bhaskar Chandra Panda, Advocate

-versus-

1.State of Odisha 2.Collector, Khordha 3.A.D.M., Bhubaneswar 4.Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar 5.Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

…. Opposite Parties

Mr.Aurobinda Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

Order No.

08.04.2025

(Through Hybrid mode)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

04.03.2025 under Annexure-6 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.5).

Vide the impugned order (Annexure-6), the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for mutation stating that since the land in question is recorded in government anabadi khata with a jungle kissam, it cannot be legally transferred to the petitioner without prior approval from the appropriate authority.

Mr.Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 30.06.2024 passed by the A.D.M., Bhubaneswar in Lease Revision Case No.434 of 1998, the A.D.M. has held that Shri Rohit Naik was

eligible to get the land on lease during the year 1974. Hence, the lease

Page 1 of 2

sanctioned by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Khata No.281, Plot No.306 in Mouzaa:Giringaput of an area Ac.0.500 in favour of the party vide

W.L. Case No.2049/75 was confirmed and the subsequent transfer of the

land to Smt. Renuka Patra has also been established as per evidence and materials on records and that as the petitioner has purchased the land in question from Renuka Patra, the order of the Additional Tahasildar is perverse and calls for interference.

Mr.Aurobinda Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits

that in the Mutation Manual, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner for challenging the impugned order.

As alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, without going

into the merits of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum alongwith application for condonation of delay.

If the applications are filed within a period of two weeks from today alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by the authority.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Bichi Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 09-Apr-2025 11:09:35

Page 2 of 2