Orissa High Court
Menaka Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others on 8 July, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18903 of 2026
Menaka Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 08.07.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the
following relief:-
“Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule Nisi
calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why
the order dtd.03.02.2026 passed by the Opp.No.2 vide
Annexure-9 and the order dtd.05.04.2025 passed by the
Opp.No.4 vide Annexure-8 are liable to be set aside and
directed to the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp.No.3) to
mutate the land in favor of the petitioner in view of the
registered sale deed bearing No. 11082411676 on
dtd.I9.11.2024, within a period of three months, in the
interest of justice and on the grounds stated in the present
petition and the opp. showing no cause or insufficient
cause or cause not to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble
Court, the writ petitioner may be allowed”
3. The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner
moved the appropriate authority i.e. the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar,
for effecting mutation of the land purchased by him under the Sale
Deed bearing No.11082411676 dated 19.11.2024, seeking
mutation in respect of an area of land measuring Ac.0.092 decimal
out of the total extent of Ac.0.230 decimal. The learned Tahasildar
declined to effect the mutation on the ground that the land in
question belongs to the co-sharers and there is no partition by
metes and bounds. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
Petitioner preferred Appeal No.191 of 2025 before the Sub-
Collector, Bhubaneswar. The learned Sub-Collector,
Bhubaneswar, vide order dated 24.10.2025, though assigned
different reason but broadly agreeing with the findings, declined
the relief sought by the Petitioner and affirmed the order passed by
the Tahasildar. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, the
Petitioner has instituted the present Writ Petition.
4. Needless to mention that a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, in Asutosh Mohapatra and Others vs Sk. Manwar Alli and
Others in W.P(C) Nos. 24461, 7690, 7693, 7694,7696, 7698,
7772, 7797, 21983,24185, 24207, 24423, 34745 of 2025 with
W.P(C) Nos. 1069, 4483, 5117 of 2026, has disposed of the batch
of writ petitions by holding that an appellate order passed by the
Sub-Collector is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section
32 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“27. The next case is that of Maheswar Nayak (supra), wherein
the Court considered the effect of Section 32 and Paragraph-111
of the Mutation Manual and observed as follows;
“xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
27. Reading through the provisions at Section 32 of
the Act, 1958, this Court finds, in the Section 32 of the
Act, 1958 power lies with the Board of Revenue or the
Commissioner and for the notification therein such
power is to be exercised only involving the
proceedings undertaken by the Revenue Officers.
Section 32 further discloses that the Revision power is
to be exercised involving the proceedings of the
Page 2 of 4
Revenue Officer, but however, where there is no
scope of appeal. Similarly reading through the
provision at paragraph no.111 of the Mutation
Manual this Court again finds, there has been further
clarification to the provision involving revisional
power of the Board of Revenue or any authorized
Officer. For there is raising of doubt, whether a
proceeding U/s.22(2) of the O.S.S.
Act, 1958 will be an appeal in the eye of law or an
original proceeding? This Court here takes into
account the provision at proviso (c) of the rule 59 of
the O.S.S. Rules, 1962, which reads as follows: “(c)
Proceedings relating to publication of the combined
draft record-of-rights and Settlement Rent Roll, filing
of objections to any entry therein or omission
therefrom, disposal of such objections, revision of
rent by the Assistant Settlement Officer, sanction of
the settled rent and modification of order of the
Assistant Settlement Officer, by the Settlement Officer
shall be carried on in accordance with provisions of
Sections 21 and 22 and Rules 26 and 27: Provided
that an application under Clause (b) of Subsection (2)
of Section 22 shall be deemed to be an appeal under
Section 12-A and no separate appeal shall lie under
the said section This Court for the clarification
through the proviso (c) of Rule 59 of the O.S.S, Rules,
1962 finds, there should be no doubt that the
proceedings undertaken in exercise of power under
Subsection 2 of Section 22 is appeal. 8. Reading both
the provisions and keeping in view that undisputedly
the original proceeding is already taken care of in
appeal vide Appeal No.2299 of 1983 under the
provisions of Section 22(2) of the Act, 1958, this
Court is of the clear opinion that there was no scope
for undertaking a revision exercise U/s.32 of the Act,
1958.
In the circumstance, this Court finds, the
revision itself is not entertainable. Impugned order
involving the Revision No.3972 of 1997 arising out of
Appeal No.2299 of 1983 remains void and
unenforceable. For the decision of this Court holding
the revision per se not entertainable, there is no
necessity to go to any other aspect involving
challenge to the revision order.”
Page 3 of 4
In the above case, the matter involved challenge to an order
passed under Section 22(2) of the Act. Section 22 relates to
settlement of rent and does not concern orders passed in
mutation proceedings, which are governed by Section 16 of
the Act and the corresponding Rules contained in Chapter-IV
of the Rules. The cited case is therefore, clearly
distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
28. In the case of Sushanta Kumar Das (supra), a coordinate
Bench held that a revision should have been filed against the
order passed in mutation appeal instead of filing writ petition.
29. This Court, after independently analyzing the statutory
provisions and the scheme and object embedded therein, as
narrated hereinbefore, feels persuaded to follow the
reasoning adopted in Sushanta Kumar Das (supra) and holds
accordingly.
Conclusion
30. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of the relevant
statutory provisions and the precedents cited at the bar,
coupled with the contentions raised and the discussions made,
this Court holds that the order passed in Mutation Appeal is
revisable under Section 32 of the OSS Act. Consequently, the
Writ Petitions are held not maintainable.”
5. Agreeing with the view subscribed by the coordinate
Bench and the position of law propounded there in this Court is
inclined to go with the same reasoning and held the present Writ
Petition not maintainable. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to
approach the appropriate forum, as indicated hereinabove. The
question of limitation, if any, shall be considered by the concerned
Revisional Authority in accordance with law, keeping in view the
fact that the Petitioner had inadvertently approached this Court by
invoking its writ jurisdiction.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Sarbani
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SARBANI DASH
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 09-Jul-2026 10:10:03
Page 4 of 4
