Prafulla Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

“It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI to the Opp.Parties, if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause ‘or’ shown insufficient cause made this Rule absolute by directing the Opp. Party No.4 (i.e. Tahasildar Jatni) to issue corrected ROR in favour of the petitioner and further pleased to quash the entire Mutation proceeding and order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Mutation Proceeding No.476/2025. (U/Annexure-4.

¶15

And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶16

It is submitted that the petitioner’s vendor was granted lease in question but it came to be recorded in the name of the State in the settlement operation. Challenging such recording, the

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26007 of 2023. By order dated 17.08.2023, a Bench of this Court, taking note of similar judgment passed by a Division Bench, remitted the matter to the Asst. Settlement Officer to proceed for recording the name of the petitioner in the ROR. Pursuant to such order, the Asst. Settlement Officer, by order dated 08.07.2024 directed the Addl. Tahasildar, Jatani to make necessary entries in the records and to generate ROR. The Addl. Tahasildar, however, initiated a mutation case, registered as Mutation Case No. 476 of 2025 and by order dated 29.05.2025 dropped the same on the ground that no documents could be produced by the petitioner or her authorised representative.

¶19

Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the proviso to Rule-35 of OSS Rules, the case could not have been registered as a mutation case but ought to have been registered as a special case only to carry out the order of the superior revenue authority. She further submits that the Addl. Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to make any further enquiry other than carrying out the order of his superior.

¶20

Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel while not disputing the legal position referred to by Ms. Mohapatra, submits that the Addl. Tahasildar thought it proper to verify the documents before carrying out the order and therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted with.

¶21

After considering the submissions and on going through the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the matter having been set at rest by the order of the Asst. Settlement Officer as referred above, the Additional Tahasildar lacks jurisdiction to

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

enter into the merits of the case again and has no other option but to carry out the same as per the mandate of the proviso to Rule-35. In such view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The Addl. Tahasildar, Jatni is directed to act upon the order passed by the Asst. Settlement Officer referred above and to do the needful as early as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

¶24

A.K. Rana

¶25

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 23-Jul-2026 17:30:47

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Prafulla Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Kumar Das 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

Kanya Kumari Rao Vs State of Odisha

Naba Kumar Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Sarfaraj Ahmad Vs State of Odisha

Niharkanti Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Rashda Khanam Vs State of Odisha

Binodini Mallick @ Kanhar Vs State of Odisha