Orders passed in mutation appeals under the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act are revisable under Section 32, allowing the Board of Revenue to correct jurisdictional errors, while existing alternative remedies do not preclude writ jurisdiction.

ORDER :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

In all these Writ Petitions, a common preliminary question as to maintainable of writ petitions arises for determination-

Whether an order passed in mutation appeal under Rule 42 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962 (OSS Rules) is revisable under Section 32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act (OSS Act) read with Paragraph-111 of the Mutation Manual.

In all these cases, the orders passed in different mutation appeals are impugned.

2. For convenience, the facts of W.P.(C) No.24461/2025 are taken up for consideration.

Facts.

3. One Kulamani Mohapatra was the original recorded owner of the property in question, who died issueless. The property devolved upon the Petitioners by way of survivorship and they are in possession. One Birendra Pattanaik, brother-in-law of late Kulamani, looked after the education of the children of his brother-in-law. The names of Kunmun Mohapatra, Anamika Mohapatra, Kabita Sahoo and Gayatree Mohapatra were recorded in the ROR in the settlement operation by treating them as successors of late Kulamani. Subsequently, they illegally alienated the property through a registered sale deed dtd.20.5.2023 in favour of the Opp.Party No.1. The Petitioners, therefore, filed a civil suit being C.S. No.347/2023 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jagatsinghpur for cancellation of the sale deed and declaration of their right, title and interest. The Petitioners also filed application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for temporary injunction, which was allowed. Opposite Party No.1 challenged the order of injunction in appeal before the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in F.A.O. No.54/2023, whereby the order of the trial Court was reversed. Challenging the order of the appellate Court, the Petitioners have approached this Court in CMP No.1501/2024, wherein an order of status quo was passed, which is still in operation. In the meantime, the Opposite Party No.1 filed six mutation cases before the Tahasildar, Tirtol for correction of ROR on the basis of the sale deed. All such cases were rejected on the ground that the sale deed was executed without consent of all the recorded tenants/legal heirs. Opposite Party No.1 thereafter preferred appeal being Mutation Appeal No.160/2023 before the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur. Said appeal was allowed. Challenging such order passed in Mutation Appeal, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. A doubt having arisen as to whether the order of the appellate authority is revisable before the Board of Revenue under Section 32 of the OSS Act or not, particularly in view of the conflicting judgments passed by this Court in different cases, the matter was heard extensively on this point.

Submissions

5. Heard Mr. B.B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel with Mr. S.S.Bhuyan, Mr. N.K.Sahu, learned Senior counsel with Mr. S.S.Sahu, Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Mr. Bijay Mohapatra and Mr. R.K.Mohanty, learned Senior counsel with Mrs. Sumitra Mohanty for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate and Smt. J. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, for the State.

6. Learned Senior counsel Mr. B.B.Bhuyan submits that the revision under Section 32 of the OSS Act cannot be treated as an alternative remedy for a person aggrieved by order passed in Mutation Appeal. He further submits that the power of revision can be exercised by the Board of Revenue suo motu only against orders passed by Revenue authorities again