Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

26. The earliest judgment cited at the bar being that in the case of Jaysankar Agrawal (supra), it would be proper to first refer to it. The Court, in the said judgment referred to different provisions contained in Chapter-IV of the Rules and observed as follows:

"Be that as it may, Section 32 of the Act provides the power of Revision on the Board of Revenue against non-appealable orders to consider legality and propriety of such order and also to examine jurisdictional error in such orders. Therefore, the mutation order passed under Chapter IV of the Rules being appealable, that order is not revisable under Section 32. Section 33 of the Act provides that Government by Notification, may delegate the power of the Board of Revenue to an officer not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Commissioner. On a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions it is seen that the provision of law in the Act and the Rules has not invested power or jurisdiction on the Collector to entertain a Misc. application to set aside an order of mutation or to revise the same with an order of remand."

(Emphasis Added) The above was a case where the Collector exercised jurisdiction to set aside an order passed in a mutation (O.J.C. No.7134/2001) case. The Court held that neither the Act nor the Rules vested jurisdiction with the Collector to exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction, noting that under Rule 42, Settlement Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer is the appellate authority. Since the mutation order passed under Chapter- IV of the Rules is appealable, the same is not revisable under Section 32. Obviously, the facts of the said case are entirely different from the present cases, where the question is whether the order passed by the appellate authority is revisable or not.