ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.37534 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Mr. Hemanta Kumar Rout

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhabani Sankar Das, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

(State-Opp. Parties)

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 07.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment :07.01.2026

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Case No.3815/2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Delanga (Opp. Party No.4).

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

3. The Addl. Tahasildar, Delanga (Opp. Party No.4) rejected to the Mutation Case No.3815 of 2025 of the petitioner on dated 06.09.2025.

The said impugned order dated 06.09.2025 is as follows:

06/09/2025 “Perused the case record. It is found that, it is a joint property. One of the co-sharer has transacted the plot without the consent of another co-sharer. Hence this case is rejected.”

Rajendra Narayan Moharana Addl. Tahasildar, Delanga

4. The law relating to the Mutation of the purchase land by the purchaser like the petitioner from one of the co-sharer without the consent of the other co-sharers has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

(i) In a case between Sudam Das Vs. Krushna Mahakur reported in JBR Vol-XVIII (1982) II, Page 43 that, when one of the co-sharer sells his share, the purchaser will become the co-sharer in place of the seller. No particular plot of land can be mutated in his name, unless other co-sharers consent to it or a decree from the Civil Court is obtained indicating his share, before that, partition is pre-mature.

(ii) In a case between Sashikanta Panigrahi Vs. State of Odisha & Others reported in 2025 (II) OLR 1038 that, when purchaser from one of the co-sharers of the property apply for mutation of the purchased land to his name, in that case, the mutation will be allowed in favour of the petitioner making the purchaser as a co-sharer with others, those have not alienated/transferred their share to the purchaser. But, no particular plot of land can be mutated in the name of the purchaser unless the other co-sharers consent to it or the decree of partition is there.

5. When it is the clarified propositions of law as per the ratio of the aforesaid decisions that, when one of the co-sharer sells his share, the purchaser will become the co-sharer in place of the seller and no particular plot of land can be mutated in his name, unless other co-sharers consent to it, then, at this juncture, the impugned order i.e. total rejection to the Mutation Case No.3815/2025 as per order dated

06.09.2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Delanga (Opp. Party No.4) assigning the reasons that, the case land is a joint property and one of the co-sharer has transacted the plot without the consent of another co-sharer, for which, the mutation is not possible cannot be sustainable under law.

Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

6. As such, there is some merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed in part.

7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.

8. The impugned order dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Case No.3815 of 2025 by the Addl.

Tahasildar, Delanga (Opp. Party No.4) is quashed.

The matter vide Mutation Case No.3815 of 2025 is remitted/remanded back to the Addl. Tahasildar, Delanga (Opp. Party No.4) to decide the same afresh on the basis of the observations made in this Judgment after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof as ex