ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.32018 of 2023

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution

of India.

***

Prasana Kumar Patra .......…… Petitioner

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others …….. Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Patnaik, Advocate

Mr.S.Mohanty, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr.A.P. Bose, Advocate

(for O.P. No.4)

Ms.J.Sahoo, A.S.C. (for O.P. Nos.1 to 3)

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing: 14.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner praying for quashing the Order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure- 10) and notice dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure-11) issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in reference to Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3.

3. The case of the Petitioner in this writ petition is that, he (Petitioner) is the owner of the case land. The R.o.R of the same stand in his name. He (Petitioner) is in possession over the case land constructing boundary walls around the same, but, surprisingly, as per order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure-10) passed in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, he (Petitioner) received a notice vie (Annexure-11) from the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to handover possession of the case land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra).

4. On the basis of rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is that, whether The Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar had jurisdiction to issue notice vide Annexure-11 to the Petitioner as per order dated 14.09.2023 (Annnexure-10) passed in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 to handover possession of land of the Petitioner to O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra)?

5. The order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure-10) passed in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar as well as notice vide Annexure-11 are going to show that, the Petitioner is in possession over the case land and the R.o.R thereof stands in his name and he (Petitioner) is paying rent for the same.

6. Law is well settled that, Tahasildars or Additional Tahasildars have no jurisdiction under law to pass any order in any Mutation Case directing any Party to handover (deliver)

possession of the case land like Civil Court.

Because, as per law, recovery of possession is within the jurisdiction of competent Civil Court, but, not within the jurisdiction of Tahasildars or Additional Tahasildars.

For which, the order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure-10)

passed in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar and the notice vide Annexure 11 issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar directing to Petitioner to handover possession of his land to the O.P. No.4 (Ashok Kumar Mohapatra) are liable to be quashed, because, the same are bad and illegal under law.

7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

8. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed on contest.

9. The order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure-10) passed in Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar as well as the notice vide Annexure-11 issued by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to the Petitioner is quashed.

10. The matter vide Mutation Case No.34674 of 2022 is remitted back to the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar after to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties including the Petitioner and others, if any, complying the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the Petitioner and O.P. No.4 before the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar