Advocates:
['M/S SUSANTA KUMAR DASH', '', 'B P DHAL', 'S DAS', 'A K OTTA', 'A DHALSAMANTA']

Page 1 of 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 19590 of 2016

Tulasi Swain

..…

Petitioner

Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and another

….

Opp. Parties

Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,

Additional Standing Counsel

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

22.03.2022

10.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2.

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the

order dated 17^th September, 2016 (Annexure-4) passed in

Mutation Case No.3691 of 2012, whereby Tahasildar, Tangi-

Choudwar-Opposite Party No.2 dropped the mutation case filed

by the Petitioner under Rule 34 of the Odisha Survey and

Settlement Rules, 1962 (for short, 8the Rules9).

3.

Mr. Dash, learned counsel submits that Sabik Khata

No.112 under Tangi-Choudwar tahasil in mouza Haripur of

Cuttack district is a vast land stood recorded in Govt. Khata and

was kept reserved for being settled in favour of Jawans. Out of

said Sabik Khata No.112, Ac.5.00 decimal was settled in favour

of one Amritlal Jee Jachak, son of late Chunilal Jee Jachak,

who is an ex-serviceman in Lease Case No.1527 of 1978.

Subsequently, he got the land in question recorded in his name

and R.O.R. in respect of Plot No.1/448/497 under Khata

No.106/49 in mouza Haripur was prepared in his name under

// 2 //

Page 2 of 5

Annexure-1. The Petitioner purchased the land in question from

said Amritlal vide RSD dated 3^rd June, 2005 and was delivered

with possession. Thereafter, the Petitioner went on paying rent

in respect of the land in question. After purchase, the Petitioner

filed Mutation Case No.3691 of 2012 to record the land in

question in his name. As no step was taken by the Tahasildar,

Tangi-Choudwar to dispose of the said mutation case, the

Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.11242 of 2014, which was

disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1^st July, 2014

directing the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar to hear and dispose

of the mutation case within a period of three months from the

date of production of certified copy of the said order. In spite of

the said direction, no step was taken for disposal of the

Mutation Case within the stipulated period, for which the

Petitioner moved this Court in CONTC No.1257 of 2016. On

receipt of notice in the Contempt Application, the Tahasildar,

Tangi-Choudwar in a haste posted the matter to 17^th September,

2016 for hearing and passed the impugned order under

Annexure-4.

3.1

It is his submission that on receipt of notice from this

Court in the Contempt Application, Tahasildar did not offer any

opportunity to the Petitioner. He did not also verify the records

available with him, which contained the copy of the rent

receipts paid in respect of the land in question by the Petitioner

as well as other relevant records. It is his submission that the

Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar, while adjudicating the matter,

made an attempt to sit over the lease granted in favour of the

vender of the Petitioner, which is not permissible in law. On a

plain reading of the impugned order, it will be apparent that the

// 3 //

Page 3 of 5

Tahasildar has not applied its mind and has not verified the case

record while passing the impugned order under Annexure-4. In

that view of the matter, he prays for setting aside the impugned

order and to remit the matter back to the Tahasildar, Tangi-

Choudwar for fresh adjudication giving opportunity of hearing

to the parties concerned.

4.

Mr. Mishra, learned ASC, relying upon the counter

affidavit filed by the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar-Opposite

Party No.2 submits that the order impugned herein is an

appealable one under Rule 42 of the Rules. He further submits

that the ROR in respect of the land in question has been

prepared in the name of the vender of the Petitioner on 21^st

June, 2005. But, the