Un-probated Wills can lead to mutation in specific districts without probate, unless their genuineness is disputed, which must be resolved in Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. 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 dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in a Mutation Case No.3777 of 2024 by the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal Sadar (Opposite Party No.2), because, the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal Sadar (Opposite Party No.2) rejected the mutation case of the petitioner, assigning the reasons that, “the petitioner had applied for mutation of the case land to his name on the basis of a Will executed by Satyananda Nayak, but, the said Will has not been probated. For which, due to non-probation of Will the mutation case filed by the petitioner is rejected.”

For which, the petitioner has challenged that order of rejection of his Mutation Case No.3777 passed on dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure-5) by the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal Sadar (Opposite Party No.2) by filing this writ petition praying for quashing (setting aside) that Annexure-5.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. It is the settled propositions of law that, when a Will in question is executed in the Districts, which were coming under the ex-princely State like Mayurbhanj, Bolangir, Koraput, Dhenkanal, Ganjam, Sundargarh, Sambalpur, Angul, Keonjhar, Kalahandi, Subarnapur, Rayagada, Jharsuguda, Malkanagiri and others, no probate of Will is necessary. In the said Districts, Revenue Authorities and Tahasildars can proceed with the mutation cases on the basis of un-probated Wills.

4. On this aspect, it has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the decisions reported in (I) Amrutlal Majhi and others vs. Japi Sahuani and others , 1972 (2) C.W.R. 1451, (II) Balaram Tripathy and another vs. Lokanath Tripathy , AIR 1973 Orissa 112, (III) Mst. Radha Hota vs. Dutika Satpathy and another , (1979) 48 CLT 211 (Para 8), (IV) Sailabala Satpathy vs. Parbati Satpathy and others , 2008 (I) OLR 729, (V) Aparna Sahu and others vs. Raghunath Biswal and others , 2009 (II) CLR 155, (VI) Kunjabihari Sahu vs. State of Orissa and others , 2012 (II) OLR 394, (VII) Ritesh Kumar Patel @ Ritesh Patel vs. Kishore Chandra Patel and others , 2015 (II) CLR 1075 : 2015 (II) OLR 1025, (VIII) Subrat Purohit vs. State of Orissa and others , W.P. (C) No. 24927 of 2021, (IX) Ratnamala Mishra vs. State of Orissa and others , W.P. (C) No. 33187 of 2021, (X) Fatik Bala and others vs. State of Odisha and others , W.P. (C) No. 5216 of 2023, (XI) Amrita Pandey vs. State of Orissa and another , 2023 (I) CLR 621 that, “If the Wills are executed in a place either outside the areas specified in the clauses of Section 57 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925 or in respect of the immovable properties situated beyond the territories specified in clauses of Section 57 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925, those areas/territories were under the ex-princely State called as Gadajat Wills, probate of such Wills are not required under law. The Revenue Authorities in the said areas can proceed with the mutation cases on the basis of un-probated Wills.”

5. Government of Orissa has issued a Letter vide letter No.23734 dated 13.08.2019 to the Collector, Mayurbhanj (which district was also coming under the ex-princely State) on the basis of the decision of this Hon’ble Courts in a case between Ritesh Kumar Patel @ Ritesh Patel vs. Kishore Chandra Patel and others , 2015 (II) OLR 1025, modifying the previous Letter No.16449 dated 07.05.2018 that, “probate of a Will is not required in the District of Mayurbhanj and the Revenue Authorities can proceed with the mutation case, if the same is filed for mut