Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In all these cases, the orders passed in different mutation appeals are impugned.

2. For convenience, the facts of W.P.(C) No.24461/2025 are taken up for consideration.

Facts.

3. One Kulamani Mohapatra was the original recorded owner of the property in question, who died issueless. The property devolved upon the Petitioners by way of survivorship and they are in possession. One Birendra Pattanaik, brother-in-law of late Kulamani, looked after the education of the children of his brother-in-law. The names of Kunmun Mohapatra, Anamika Mohapatra, Kabita Sahoo and Gayatree Mohapatra were recorded in the ROR in the settlement operation by treating them as successors of late Kulamani. Subsequently, they illegally alienated the property through a registered sale deed dtd.20.5.2023 in favour of the Opp.Party No.1. The Petitioners, therefore, filed a civil suit being C.S. No.347/2023 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jagatsinghpur for cancellation of the sale deed and declaration of their right, title and interest. The Petitioners also filed application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for temporary injunction, which was allowed. Opposite Party No.1 challenged the order of injunction in appeal before the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in F.A.O. No.54/2023, whereby the order of the trial Court was reversed. Challenging the order of the appellate Court, the Petitioners have approached this Court in CMP No.1501/2024, wherein an order of status quo was passed, which is still in operation. In the meantime, the Opposite Party No.1 filed six mutation cases before the Tahasildar, Tirtol for correction of ROR on the basis of the sale deed. All such cases were rejected on the ground that the sale deed was executed without consent of all the recorded tenants/legal heirs. Opposite Party No.1 thereafter preferred appeal being Mutation Appeal No.160/2023 before the Sub-Collector, Jagatsinghpur. Said appeal was allowed. Challenging such order passed in Mutation Appeal, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

7. Learned Senior counsel Mr. N.K.Sahu refers to different statutory provisions such as Section 16 of the of the OSS Act and Rules 32,33,34,35,41,42 and 43 of the OSS Rules, 1962. He also refers to Section 32 of the OSS Act to submit that the expression "from whose decision no appeal lies" clearly implies that the order passed in Mutation Appeal is not included in its purview. With regard to Para-111 of the Odisha Mutation Manual, 1962, Mr. Sahu submits that the same being in the nature of an executive instruction and not authenticated in the manner prescribed under Article 166(2) of the Constitution nor notified in the official gazette, does not have force of law. Mr. Sahu further submits that the power under Section 32 can be exercised in relation to an order passed before publication of the ROR. The statute provides specific remedy to any person aggrieved by final publication of ROR under Section 15 of the OSS Act.

10. As against the contentions noted above, learned Senior counsel Mr. R.K.Mohanty submits that there are conflicting judgments of this Court. He refers to a judgment of Jaysankar Agarwal v. Collector, Puri and another1 and the judgment rendered in Sushanta Kumar Das v. Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar & Others2 by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court. In the first judgment, it has been held that the order passed in mutation appeal is not revisable. In later judgment, a contrary view has been taken by holding that order passed in mutation appeal is revisable.

In the present batch of cases, none of the exceptions as noted above are attracted. The grievance raised pertains to the correctness of orders passed in mutation appeal by the appellate authority within its jurisdiction. Mere allegation of illegality in such orders cannot be a ground to invoke writ jurisdiction by bypassing the statutory remedy. Precedents

25. Learned Senior counsel Mr.R.K.Mohanty has argued that there are conflicting judgments rendered by different benches of this Court. Mr. Mohanty first refers to the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench in the case of Sushanta Kumar Das (Supra) wherein it was held that revision is maintainable against an order passed in 'mutation appeal'. Mr. Mohanty further cites the judgment of this Court in the case of Jaysankar Agrawal (Supra), wherein it was held that the 'mutation order' passed under Chapter-IV of the Rules being appealable, that order is not revisable under Section 32. In the case of Maheswar Nayak vs. Commissioner Land Records and Settlement and others7 another Bench held that there is no scope for undertaking a revision exercise under Section 32 against an order passed in mutation appeal.