Authorities cannot refuse to accept an application for legal redress without providing a hearing, to uphold an individual's right to seek justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for directing the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) for acceptance of his application under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 for conversion of the status of the case land, as, the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) did not accept his application for conversion.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

3. The law concerning the non-acceptance of any application by any Court or any Authority like the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

(i) In a case between Moti Dei Vrs. Cuttack Bank Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1964 (Orissa) 185 in Para No.6 that, Once a party files an application alleging therein certain matters for consideration, the Court is bound to hear the Party. It is open to the Court to reject the Party’s contention, but, it is not open to the Court to say that, the Party is not entitled to hearing as the identical matter had been decided by a previous order.

(ii) In a case between Shraban Kumar Agrawalla Vrs. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 22 OCR 365 that, When, an application is filed before the Court, it would have been appropriate for the Court to accept and register the same as a case by following the provisions laid down in the GRCO and the Cr.P.C. and the Court should not have disposed of that application by making an endorsement on the back of the said application.

(iii) In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vrs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others reported in 2025(3) Civ.C.C. 159 (Allahabad) in Para No.5 that,

The Petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, as his application for mutation has not been registered by the Tahasil Authorities. Time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to why the mutation application of the petitioner has yet not been registered. It was informed by the learned Standing Counsel that, in the light of embargo contained in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the application for mutation on the basis of an unregistered will has not been registered.

The High Court held that, when a person approaches the Court of law or an authority through an application, the said Court of law or an authority cannot refuse to accept that application. It may be different issue, whether the application is maintainable or not, in that case, the Court concerned can consider and pass appropriate orders after accepting the said petition, but, a person cannot be stopped from submitting his application/petition as that would amount to violation of his right to seek legal redressal. So, the Tahasildar was directed to accept the application of the petitioner and to register a mutation case and thereafter, pass appropriate orders as may be applicable in terms of the law.

4. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally directing the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) to accept and register the application for conversion of the case land, if filed by the petitioner along with the certified copy of this Judgment and the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) dispose that case under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 as per law as expeditiously as possible.

5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.