Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Mamata Routray - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha And Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24583 of 2025
Decided On : 26-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the mutation case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's challenge to the rejection of the mutation application. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's acknowledgment of counsel arguments. (Para 4) |
| 4. property rights and deprivation principles established. (Para 5) |
| 5. legal framework for mutation of land. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 6. rights of landowners regarding mutation and possession. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. court's ruling on sustainability of previous order. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 8. remand of the case for actions in compliance with the judgment. (Para 14 , 15) |
Judgment :
A.C. Behera, J.
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the order of rejection to the Mutation Case No.3493 of 2024 of the petitioner passed on dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) by the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop, Puri (O.P. No.3).
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner had filed Mutation Case No.3493 of 2024 before the Tahasildar, Gop praying for mutation of the purchased land of the petitioner in Mouza Batalibhuan under Khata No.96, Plot No.202 to the name of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-1) executed in favour of the petitioner by the land owner of the said land.
The status of the purchased land of the petitioner under Khata No.96, plot No.202 in Mouza Batalibhuan under Puri Sadar P.S. is under sthitiban status. At the time of purchase, the said land was also under the sthitiban satwa/status of the vendor of the petitioner.
After registration of the Mutation Case No.3493 of 2024 by the Tahasildar, Gop on the application of the petitioner for correction of R.o.R. of Khata No.96 Plot No.202 from the name of the vendor of the petitioner to the name of the petitioner, the Tahasildar, Gop transferred that Mutation Case No.3493 of 2024 to the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop for its consideration and disposal. The Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3.) rejected to the Mutation Case No.3493 of 2024 of the petitioner through the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) assigning the reasons that,
“perused all documents presented by the petitioner and joint verification report by R.I. and Forest Department and others. As the land is under contested reasons, hence it cannot be disposed of directly as per letter No.10186 dated 24.03.2021 of R & DM Deptt. Hence, necessary procedure is followed as per direction of Hon’ble High Court, Mutation Manual and O.S. & S. Rules, 1962. On the basis of joint verification, it is stated that, the land falls under core area of Balukhanda-Konark wild life sanctuary, also as per 3rd Monitoring Committee, 4th Monitoring Committee, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Joint Verification Letter No.64 dated 14.07.2025 office of the R.I., Chhaitana, Forest Department and others, I am inclined to disallow the case. Hence, rejected.”
3. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order of rejection to the Mutation Case No.3493 of 2024 of the petitioner passed on dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) by the Addl. Tahasildar, Gop (O.P. No.3), the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the aforesaid impugned order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure-9) on the ground that, in fact, Mouza of the case land i.e. Batalibhuan under Puri Sadar P.S. in the district of Puri is not coming within the limit of sanctuary and Eco-Sensitive Zone as per the notification of the Government and the case land is beyond the limit of sanctuary and Eco- Sensitive Zone, for which, there was no impediment under law to allow the Mutation Case No.3493 of 2024 of the petitioner for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land to the name of the petitioner on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner.
The further case of the petitioner is that, there was/is no prohibition under law for co
A landowner's right to mutate property based on a registered sale deed cannot be legally denied without lawful acquisition or evidence of ownership disputes.
The court concluded that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to revisit the validity of the sale deed during mutation proceedings, reaffirming that such matters should be handled by competent legal au....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Accrued rights in land records cannot be retrospectively altered; any changes must respect established legal principles and processes.
Accrued rights cannot be retrospectively altered; initial orders deemed illegal invalidate subsequent actions made under them.
The Tehsildar retains jurisdiction to entertain mutation applications for non-agricultural land even after acquisition notifications under the National Highway Act, and auction proceedings under the ....
The Tehsildar retains jurisdiction over mutation applications for non-agricultural land, even post-acquisition notifications, and auction sales under the Securitisation Act are valid if conducted pri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
