ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.28881 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Nilandri @ Nilandhri Rana

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. T. Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 30.10.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Tahasildar, Kalahandi (Opp. Party No.3) to receive/accept the application (original of Annexure-4) for Mutation filed by the petitioner under Annexure-4, because, the Tahasildar, Kalahandi (Opp. Party No.3) orally refused to receive the application for Mutation of the petitioner.

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

3. The law concerning refusal of the Tahasildar to receive an application for Mutation submitted by a party like the petitioner has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:

I. In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs.

District Magistrate & Others reported in 2025 (3) Civ.C.C. (Allh.) 159 that, if any party files an application before any authority or Court, the authority or Court cannot orally refuse to accept that application, but, as per law, he is to receive the same and to register the same as a case as per law and then, to proceed with the same for passing necessary order as per law, but, any authority or Court cannot orally refuse to receive the application of a party.

4. Here in this matter at hand, when the Tahasildar, Kalahandi (Opp. Party No.3) orally refused to receive the application for Mutation (original of Annexure-4) of the petitioner, then, in view of the principles of law clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the above conduct of the Tahasildar, Kalahandi (Opp. Party No.3) i.e. his oral refusal to receive the application for mutation of the petitioner is not in conformity with the law. For which, necessary direction can be issued to the Tahasildar, Kalahandi (Opp. Party No.3) to receive the application for Mutation of the petitioner, if presented by him (petitioner).

5. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

6. The Tahasildar, Kalahandi (Opp. Party No.3) is directed to receive the application for Mutation, if filed by the petitioner annexing the certified copy of this Judgment for its registration and disposal as per law.

7. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 30 .10. 2025//

Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.

Date: 31-Oct-2025 19:19:30