IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.26656 of 2024
Abhimanyu Mishra …. Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Behera, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 30.10.2024
No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Behera, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction
to opposite party No.3 to reconsider mutation of the case land on
the grounds stated.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
such mutation applied for by the petitioner has been rejected on the
premise that the source of title being based on a Will required
probate, which is not necessary in the erstwhile princely States,
hence, therefore, the impugned order dated 19th February, 2024
under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in law, hence, to be set aside
with the matter remanded back for a fresh disposal according to
law.
4. A copy of the Will is at Annexure-2.
Page 1 of 3
5. Perused the impugned order under Annexure-1.
6. Referring to a decision in Siba Sankar Sahoo Vrs. The State
of Odisha and others 2022 (II) OLR 1030, a copy of which is at
Annexure-5, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the mutation authority could not have passed the impugned
order under Annexure-1 on the premise that Will involved required
to be probated, which is not correct. In the decision (supra), as
according to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, probate of the Will in the
district of Bolangir is not a requirement of view referring to the
decision in Siba Sankar Sahoo (supra).
7. Having regard to the facts pleaded on record and
submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
objection of Mr. Behera, learned ASC for the State and regard being
had to the settled legal position reaffirmed by this Court in Siba
Sankar Sahoo (supra), the Court is of the view that the probate of
the Will since found to be not a requirement under law in respect of
the area under consideration, so therefore, it was not right on the
part of opposite party No.3, not to entertain the mutation in
respect of case land and in passing the impugned order dated 19th
February, 2024, hence, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside
followed by a remand.
8. Hence, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is hereby
set aside with the matter remitted back for a fresh consideration by
opposite party No.3 in connection with Mutation Case No.616 of
Page 2 of 3
2023 disposal of which shall be ensured as soon as possible
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order, an exercise to be concluded after providing an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
Page 3 of 3
Date: 04-Nov-2024 13:33:24