The Tahasildar must comply with the Civil Court decree and cannot arbitrarily reject mutation applications based on such decrees; compliance with the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules is mandatory.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.U.K.Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that, after the decree passed by the learned Civil Court, he approached the Joint Commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur and the Joint Commissioner in order dated 27^th June 2007, under Annexure-5, directed the original Court i.e. the Tahasildar, for correction of R.O.R. based on the Civil Court decree.

3. Then the Petitioners approached the Tahasildar. The same was registered as Mutation Case No.723 of 2018 and the Tahasildar treating the same as a regular mutation application rejected it in a mechanical manner.

4. As seen from the order-sheet of the Tahasildar in Mutation Case No.723 of 2018, the case was posted to 14^th December 2018 on 11^th December 2018. But on 14^th December 2018 no order was passed and all of a sudden on 1^st November 2021, the record was taken up and the case was rejected with the following orders:

“This Case is put up today. Concerned R.I. has submitted the case record is contested in nature. Even after repeated notices issue to the party to appear the court for hearing but the petitioner as well as O.P. are unable to present therefore the original documents for verification and field possession of the applicant over the case land is not confirmed. Hence the instant case is rejected at this level. Informed the petitioner is accordingly.”

5. It needs to be mentioned here that Rule 34 of the ODISHA SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT RULES , 1962 read with proviso to Rule 35 prescribes that the cases registered based on the orders of a decree of Civil Court are to be treated as special cases. Further, this Court in Sanatan Acharya vs-Tahasildar, Panposh, 2016 (II) OLR 290 have observed that Rule 35 of the O.S.S. Rules provides that the Tahasildar is to carry out the order of superior court with regard to entry in the R.O.R. and he has no authority to sit over the order of the higher court.

6. In the instant case, the decree passed in Tittle Suit No.46 of 1998 is never disputed. The Petitioners have applied for correction of R.O.R. in the light of the decree passed in Title Suit No.46 of 1998. Therefore, the provisions contained in Rule 34 read with the proviso to Rule 35 of the ODISHA SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT RULES , 1962 are squarely fitted to the instant case and as such, the rejection of mutation case by the Tahasildar is found erroneous. The same is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tahasildar for fresh decision.

7. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Tahasildar, Lathikata, Sundargarh, Opposite Party No.3 to dispose of the Mutation Case No.732 of 2018 on merits in terms of the observation stated above within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.