ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.28600 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Sanjukta Giri

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar … Opposite Party

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 14.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 14.10.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus against the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar (Opp. Party) for registration of her application under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 for conversion of the case land from “Jalasaya” to “Gharabari”, because the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar (Opp. Party) did not receive/accept her application under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The law concerning receiving an application submitted by a party before the Court or an authority like the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar (Opp. Party) has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions:

I. In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs.

District Magistrate & Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C. (Allh.) 159 that, when a person approaches the Court of law by filing an application, the Court or authority cannot refuse to accept that application.

It may be a different issue, whether his/her application is maintainable or not, the person/applicant cannot be stopped from submitting his/her application/petition.

II. 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 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.

III. In a case between Shraban Kumar Agarwalla Vs. State of Orissa reported in (2002) 22 OCR 365 that, when an application filed before the Court, it would be appropriate for the Court to accept and register the same by following the provisions laid down in law, but cannot dispose of that application by making an endorsement on the back of that application.

4. So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar (Opp. Party) should not have refused to receive the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960, but he should have accepted/received the same and to register the same. Thereafter, he (Opp. Party) should have passed necessary order on the same. But, the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar (Opp. Party) has not done so.

For which, the aforesaid conduct of the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar for non-acceptance of the application under Section 8-A of the OLR Act of the petitioner is not legally sustainable under law.

5. Therefore, there is justification under law for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus against the Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar (Opp. Party) allowing this writ petition filed by the petitioner directing him (Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar) to accept the application under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 of the petitioner and to register the same, then, to act upon the same as per law.

6. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

7. The Tahasildar, Cuttack Sadar is directed to accept the application under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 of the petitioner for conversion of the case land, if filed by the petitioner annexing the certified copy of this Judgment and to register the same and then, to dispose the said OLR Case under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 as per law as expeditiously as possible.

8. Hence, with the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA