IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.35417 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India)

Ashok Kumar Puala …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha And Another …. Opposite Parties

Appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. Ghanashyam Banji, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak,

Addl. Standing Counsel

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 24.12.2025 / date of judgment : 24.12.2025

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 setting aside an order dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure-6) passed in Mutation Case No.2819

of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Rayagada (Opposite Party No.2).

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, one Chaitanya Hikaka was the recorded owner of Plot Nos.82, 83, 84, 92, 93, 94, 76, 79, 80, 117,

135/2/278, 81, 88, 89, 90, 91, 107, 108, 127, 128, 145, 128/274, 129, 130, 95, 96, 97, 109, 110 , 111, 118, 146, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 147, 134 to 137, 112 to 116 and 148 comprising total area to an extent of Ac.24.05 dec. under Khata No.22 in Mouza-Amalabhata under Rayagada Tahasil in the district of Rayagada. He (Chaitanya Hikaka) bequeathed his properties as mentioned above in favour of one Ashok Kumar Puala, i.e., petitioner of this writ petition executing a Will on dated 09.09.2014.

When the aforesaid Testator of the Will dated 09.09.2014, i.e., Chaitanya Hikaka died on dated 04.01.2020, then, the petitioner possessed the aforesaid bequeathed properties and filed a mutation case vide Mutation Case No.2819 of 2025 before the Tahasildar, Rayagada (Opposite Party No.2) for the correction of R.o.R of the said properties to his name on the basis of that Will dated 09.09.2014.

As per an order dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure-6), Tahasildar, Rayagada (Opposite Party No.2) rejected that Mutation Case No.2819 of

2025 filed by the petitioner assigning reasons that, “Perused the report of the R.I. and verify the Willnama which reveals that, the Willnama is an unregistered and unprobated one. As per Notification No.16449 dated 07.05.2018 of R&DM Department in point No.6. The case is rejected.”

So, the petitioner challenged that (Annexure-6) passed by the Tahasildar, Rayagada (Opposite Party No.2) by filing this writ petition on the ground that, “When the properties covered under the Will dated

09.09.2014 executed in favour of the petitioner are situated in the district of Rayagada and the said Will has been executed in the District of Rayagada, which is outside the area specified in the Clauses of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and when Rayagada District was under the ex-princely State, then, the question of probation of that Will does not arise. For which, the Tahasildar, Rayagada (Opposite Party No.2) should not have rejected the said mutation case of the petitioner as per Annexure-6”.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State (Opposite Parties).

4. It is the settled propositions of law that, when a Will in question either registered or unregistered is executed in the Districts, which were coming under the ex-princely State like Mayurbhanj, Bolangir, Koraput, Dhenkanal, Ganjam, Sundargarh, Sambalpur, Angul, Keonjhar, Rayagada, Kalahandi, Subarnapur, Jharsuguda, Malkanagiri and others, no probate of Will is necessary. In the said Districts, Revenue Authorities and Tahasildars can proceed with the mutation cases on the basis of un- probated Will even though the said Will is not registered one. Because registration of a Will is not compulsory under law.

5. On this aspect, propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions :-

(i) In a case between Sariamani Hota and others vrs.

State of Orissa and others reported in 112(2011) CLT-756 and 2011(2) OJR-519 that,—Registration of