IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33321 of 2022 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

---------------

AFR Smt. Sailabala Panigrahi ...… Petitioners -Versus-

State Of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case through virtual mode For Petitioner : M/s. D. Mahapatra, J. Panigrahi, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mrs. J. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. J. Tewari, Advocate [for O.P. No.5]

Mr. J. Panda, Adv. for intervenor CORAM:

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT

5^th May, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner seeks to assail the order dated

03.03.2022 passed by the Sub-Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani in Mutation Appeal No.22 of 2021, whereby the appellate authority has set aside the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by the Tahasildar, Kandhamal in Mutation Case No.160 of 2021 under which the Record-of-Rights (ROR) had been prepared in favour of the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that the land appertaining to Plot No.1053/1326 under Khata No.238/347 measuring an area of Ac.0.015 decimals situated in Mouza- Phulbanisahi originally stood recorded in the name of one Kishore Chandra Padhi. Out of the said land, an extent of Ac.0.013 decimals was purchased by Opposite Party No.5 by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.12.2004 and possession thereof was delivered in her favour. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the remaining extent of Ac.0.002 decimals from Kishore Chandra Padhi by a registered sale deed dated 26.03.2021 and came into possession of the same. Pursuant to purchase, the petitioner applied for mutation, and the Tahasildar, Kandhamal, upon due enquiry, allowed the mutation in Mutation Case No.160 of 2021 and issued the ROR in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, Opposite Party No.5 preferred Mutation Appeal No.22 of 2021 before the Sub-Collector, Kandhamal, Phulbani contending that the original vendor had already transferred the entire extent of land in her favour and had no subsisting right to execute the subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The appellate authority, upon consideration of the materials on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner by his order dated 03.03.2022. Said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Counter Affidavit has been filed by Opposite Party No. 5 stating that the original recorded tenant, Kishore Chandra Padhi had acquired the land measuring Ac.0.013 decimals (66 ft. × 21 ft.) by virtue of a registered sale deed in the year 1979 and had subsequently sold the entire land in her favour by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.12.2004. It is further stated that due to an erroneous entry during settlement operation the land was wrongly recorded as Ac.0.015 decimals instead of Ac.0.013 decimals and taking advantage of such incorrect entry, Kishore Chandra Padhi purportedly sold the excess land measuring Ac.0.002 decimals to the petitioner though no such land was actually available. Therefore, it is stated by her that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is void and the mutation granted in her favour was illegal for which it was rightly interfered in appeal.

4. Counter Affidavit has also been filed by the State (Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4) stating that the original vendor, Kishore Chandra Padhi had acquired land measuring Ac.0.013 decimals and had subsequently sold the entire extent in favour of Opposite Party No.5 leaving no land available for further transfer. According to them, the recording of Ac.0.015 decimals during settlement operation was erroneous and did not confer any right upon the vendor. It is also stated that taking advantage of incorrect recording, the vendor executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Ac.0.002 decimals, though no such land was available in reality. It is, however, admitted that the Tahasildar had allowed the mutation in favour of the petitio