IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.35853 of 2025

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Dhruti Ranjan Mohanty …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. Sumanta Bhuyan,

Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. S. Nayak,

Addl. Standing Counsel

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing and Judgment :09.01.2026

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 directing the Tahasildar, Dharmagarh (Opposite Party No.4) to receive 2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.

Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The law concerning the duty of the Tahasildar to receive the application or applications, if filed by any person and to act upon the same has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vrs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others reported in 2025(3) Civil Court Cases-159 (Allahabad) that, Tahasildar cannot refuse to accept the application for mutation filed by a party/person, but he is bound to accept the same and to register the same as per law, then to proceed with the same for its disposal according to law. But, Tahasildar cannot refuse to accept the application for mutation. The oral refusal of the Tahasildar to accept the application for mutation from a person/party shall be amount to violation of the right of that person to seek legal redressal. (Para-5).

4. When, the propositions of law has already been settled in the ratio of the aforesaid decision that, the Tahasildar cannot refuse to receive the application of any person including the petitioner for mutation and it is his duty as per law to receive the same and to register the same according to law as mutation case, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decision to this matter at hand, I find no justification to disallow the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed.

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

petitioner annexing the certified copy of this judgment and to register the same as a mutation case and then to dispose of the same as per law as expeditiously as possible by following the guidelines/circular issued by the Government of Orissa vide Notification No.10186 dated 24.03.2021 6. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

09.01.2026//Rati Ran jan Naya k//

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

Date: 09-Jan-2026 14:54:07