Disposed

Sukanta Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 Sept 2026WP(C)/25193/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging mutation and revenue proceedings, the Court observed that the petitioner's primary relief sought was against the mutation order. Since such orders are challengeable via appeal, the writ application was not granted; instead, liberty to prefer an appeal was accorded.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks; writ application disposed of without granting the specific reliefs sought.

Sukanta Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha — Landlord and Tenant | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C). No.25193 of 2026

¶3

ODHC010571232026

¶4

Sukanta Kumar …. Petitioner Patra Represented by

¶5

Represented by Mr. A.Pattanaik, Advocate

¶6

-Versus -

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors …. Opposite Party Represented by Mr. G.Mohanty, Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶9

Order No. 01.

¶10

ORDER_ 10.09.2026

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶14

prayer:

¶15

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to

¶16

(A) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 not to effect any mutation, correction of Record-of Right, partition, conversion, demarcation, issuance of possession certificates, or any other consequential revenue action in favour of Opposite Party No.8 on the basis of the impugned registered Sale Deed dated 13.07.2026 during pendency of RFA No. 58 of 2026 before the learned District Judge, khurda at Bhubaneswar.

¶17

(B) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the entire mutation proceeding in Mutation Case No. 390 of 2026 together with the mutation order passed by the learned Tahasildar, Udala having been conducted in gross violation of

¶18

1 | P a g e

¶19

the principles of natural justice by resorting to forged and fabricated service of notice upon the petitioner;

¶20

(C) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing all consequential revenue proceedings, including any mutation, correction of record-of-Rights (ROR), or other revenue entries made or proposed to be made pursuant to the impugned mutation order and the Registered Sale Deed dated 13.07.2026.

¶21

(D) issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representations dated 22.06.2026 and 14.07.2026 in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;

¶22

(E) Pass such further or other order(s), direction(s) or writ(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

¶23

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶24

The petitioner confines his prayer to relief sought under Sl. B of the writ application. Since the order passed in mutation case can be challenged in appeal, the writ application is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from today. If such appeal is preferred within the stipulated period, the same shall be considered on its own merits.

¶25

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶26

Deepak

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2026 11:03:47

¶29

2 | P a g e

Sukanta Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukanta Kumar Patra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases