Inocencio Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC29 Apr 2026WP(C)/10838/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation appeal route via alternative remedy: Tahasildar Raikia rejection order 09.01.2026; Mutation Case No.33 of 2026; Plot No.432; Patita kisam vs 'Abada Jogya Anabadi'; ROR published 30.09.1980; registered sale deed 19.02.1972; writ disposed with liberty to appeal within two weeks; mandatory condonation of delay; appeal to be decided within two months; W.P.(C) No.10838/2026; Inocencio Pradhan v. State of Odisha; Justice Sashikanta Mishra; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to prefer appeal within two weeks; appellate authority directed to condone delay (if sought with the appeal), hear the appeal on merit in accordance with law, and finally dispose of it within two months of filing. ¶¶16

Inocencio Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahasildar, Raikia's order dated 09.01.2026 rejecting Mutation Case No.33 of 2026 is sustainable, given the petitioners' submission that Plot No.432 is of Patita kisam as per the ROR published on 30.09.1980, while the impugned order records the kisam as 'jungle' and the land as 'Abada Jogya Anabadi'.

¶¶13

Court's answer

The questions raised (kisam/recording of the land versus the petitioners' 1972 registered sale deed) are factual aspects which can be better appreciated by the appellate Court on the basis of materials placed before it; accordingly the writ route was inappropriate.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Since alternative remedy (appeal) is available, the writ petition is disposed of, granting the petitioners liberty to prefer appeal within two weeks from the date of the order.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

If the appeal is preferred along with an application seeking condonation of delay, the appellate authority shall condone the delay and hear the appeal on its own merit in accordance with law.ratio¶¶16
The appeal shall be finally disposed of within two months from the date of its filing.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Justice Sashikanta Mishra), W.P.(C) No. 10838 of 2026, disposed on 29.04.2026. Petitioners challenged the Tahasildar, Raikia's order dated 09.01.2026 rejecting their Mutation Case No.33 of 2026, contending that Plot No.432 is of Patita kisam per the ROR published on 30.09.1980, whereas the impugned order recorded the kisam as 'jungle' and the land as 'Abada Jogya Anabadi'; they claimed purchase by registered sale deed dated 19.02.1972. Observing that these are factual matters better suited to the appellate Court, and that an alternative remedy exists, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, directing condonation of any delay, hearing on merit, and final disposal of the appeal within two months.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 10838 of 2026

¶3

Inocencio Pradhan and Others .… Petitioners Represented by Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & another

¶6

.… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

29.04.2026

Order No. 01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

¶13

The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Tahasildar, Raikia in rejecting the mutation case filed by them being Mutation Case No.33 of 2026. It is submitted that the observation made in the impugned order that the kisam of the land is ‘jungle’ is contrary to record, inasmuch as, as per ROR published on 30.09.1980, the concerned plot, being Plot No.432 is of Patita kisam.

¶14

This Court, however, observes that the Tahasildar has also held that the land being recorded as ‘Abada Jogya Anabadi’, the same cannot be mutated in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners, on the other hand, claim to have purchased the land on the strength of registered sale deed on 19.02.1972. These are all factual aspects, which can be better appreciated by the appellate Court on the basis of materials placed before it.

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

Since alternative remedy is available, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to prefer appeal within two weeks from today. If such appeal is preferred along with the application seeking condonation of delay, the appellate authority shall condone the delay and hear the appeal on its own merit in accordance with law. The appeal shall be finally disposed of within two months from the date of its filing.

¶17

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶18

Judge

¶19

B.C. Tudu

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 30-Apr-2026 10:29:17

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Inocencio Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inocencio Pradhan 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Surendra Chemi Vs State of Odisha

Kabitarani Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Sk.Nurudin Vs State of Odisha

Himanshu Kumar Chemi Vs State of Odisha

Golbadan Podh Vs Chunnilal@Chumilal Bhoi