IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.784 of 2026

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Kiranbala Patra and Others …. Petitioners

-versus-

State of Odisha and Another …. Opposite Parties

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioners - Ms. A. Mohanty,

Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. G. Mohanty,

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 petitioners praying for directing the Tahasildar, Rasgovindpur (Opposite Party No.2) to receive the applications for mutation of the petitioners, as the Tahasildar, Rasgovindpur (Opposite Party No.2) did not receive the applications for mutation of the petitioners on the basis of the final decree passed in their favour in a partition suit vide C.S. No.17 of 2005 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada expressing about the non-submission

of measurement particulars of the decreetal properties with the respective applications for mutation.

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

3. The law concerning the duties of the Tahasildars to receive the application or applications for mutation, if filed by any person on the basis of the final decree passed in a suit like the final decree passed in C.S. No.17 of 2005 in this matter at hand has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) 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)

(ii) In a case between Smt. Manjubala Pattanayak Vrs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2001 (I) OLR 530 that, It is incumbent on the part of the Revenue Officers or Tahasildars to act for mutation of the properties according to the decree passed in the Civil Court.

4. Rule 34 (b) & (c) of the O.S.S. Rules, 1962 casts the duties upon the Revenue Authorities and Tahasildars for mutation of the properties on the basis of the decree passed in a civil suit .

5. When, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions that, a Tahasildar cannot refuse to receive the application of any person like the petitioners 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 and to dispose of the said Mutation Case or Cases applying the provisions of Rule 34 of the O.S.S. Rules, 1962, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions and the Rule 34 of the O.S.S. Rules, 1962 to this matter at hand, I find no justification to disallow this writ petition filed by the petitioners.

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

6. In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The Tahasildar, Rasgovindpur (Opposite Party No.2) is directed to receive the applications for mutation, if filed by the petitioners annexing the certified copy of this judgment and to register the same as mutation cases and to dispose of the said mutation cases 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

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

Signature (A.C. Behera), Not Verifi