IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.3689 of 2025

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

Anshuman Apat …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner- Mr. Bijay Kumar Parida,

Advocate.

Mr. Pratik Dash,

Advocate.

For Opposite Parties- Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,

Standing Counsel.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :25.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.08.2025

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 setting aside an order dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure-4) passed in Mutation

Case No.866 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Champua (Opposite Party No.2).

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, one Chakradhar Apat, recorded owner of Plot Nos.358, 364, 470, 471, 558, 563, 898, 960, 967, 977, 978, 983, 1090, 1692, 1715, 1736, 1747, 1751, 965/2025 & 1421/2034 total area Ac.4.7400 decimals under Khata No.17 in Mouza-

Kankada under Champua Tahasil in the district of Keonjhar bequeathed the properties of said Plot Nos.358, 364, 470, 471, 558, 563, 898, 960, 967, 977, 978, 983, 1090, 1692, 1715, 1736, 1747, 1751, 965/2025 & 1421/2034 in favour of his grandson, i.e., petitioner executing and registering a Will vide Will No.03 dated 06.02.2004.

When the said Testator of the aforesaid Will, i.e., Chakradhar Apat died on dated 02.10.2008, then, the petitioner possessed the aforesaid bequeathed properties and filed a mutation case vide Mutation Case No.866 of 2023 before the Tahasildar, Champua (Opposite Party No.2) for the mutation of the said properties to his name on the basis of that registered Will No.03 dated 06.02.2004.

As per the order dated 08.12.2023 (Annexure-4), the Tahasildar, Champua (Opposite Party No.2) dropped that Mutation Case No.866 of

2023 filed by the petitioner assigning the reasons that, “The Will has not been probated. A will has no legal effect until it is probated. As per letter No.16449 dated 07.05.2018 of Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha, in case of a Will which is not probated shall be rejected.”

So, the petitioner challenged that (Annexure-4) passed by the Tahasildar, Champua (Opposite Party No.2) by filing this writ petition on the ground that, “When the properties covered under the Will No.03 dated 06.02.2004 executed in favour of the petitioner are situated in the district of Keonjhar and the said Will has been executed in the District of Keonjhar, which is outside the area specified in the Clauses of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and when Keonjhar District was under the ex-princely State, then, the question of probation of that Will does not arise. For which, The Tahasildar, Champua (Opposite Party No.2) should not have dropped the said mutation case as per Annexure-4”.

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

4. 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, 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.

5. On this aspect, it has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the decisions reported in:-

(I) 1972(2) C.W.R.-1451, Amrutlal Majhi and others vrs. Japi Sahuani and others. (II) AIR 1973 Orissa-112, Balaram Tripathy and another vrs. Lokanath Tripathy. (III) 48(1979) CLT-211 (Para-8), Mst. Radha Hota vrs. Dutika Satpathy and another, (IV) 2008(I) OLR729, Sailabala Satpathy vrs, Parbati Satpathy and others. (V) 2009(II) CLR-155