Sashikanta Panigrahi vs State Of Odisha And Others

A.C.Behera, J

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the impugned order, i.e., rejection to his Mutation Case No.15424 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) on dated 12.08.2025(Annexure-3 series).

Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner is the purchaser of a portion of Plot No.37/1026 under Khata No.111 in Mouza Giringaput under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha.

The Khata No.111 stands jointly in the name of Nimai Charan Behera and Chaitanya Behera.

The petitioner is the purchaser from Nimai Charan Behera only and Chaitanya Behera has not given his consent in the sale deed in favour of the petitioner to sell the same. For which, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.3) refused to mutate the case land in the name of the petitioner, because the co-sharer of his vendor has not given consent to sell the case land in favour of the petitioner.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

In a case between Sudam Das vrs. Krushna Mahakur : reported in JBR Vol.XVIII (1982) Part-II Page 43 that, when one of the co-sharers sells his share, the purchaser will become the co-sharer in place of the seller. No particular plot of land can be mutated in his name, unless other co-shares consent to it or a decree from the Civil Court is obtained indicating his share, before that, partition is premature.

So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision to this matter at hand, it is held that, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.3) should not have rejected the application for mutation vide Mutation Case No.15424 of 2025 of the petitioner out-rightly on the ground of non-according of consent by the co-sharer of the vendor of the petitioner in the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

When, there is no dispute about the purchase of part of Plot No.37/1026 by the petitioner from one of the co-owners thereof, then at this juncture, as per law, it was the duty of the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.3) to mutate the land making the petitioner/purchaser as co-owner in the R.o.R. in place of his vendor Nimai Charan Behera with Chaitanya Behera.

For which, the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-3 Series) passed in Mutation Case No.15424 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) cannot be sustainable under law.

Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

The same must succeed.

In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest.

The impugned order dated 12.08.2025(Annexure-3 series) passed in Mutation Case No.15424 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) is quashed (set aside).

The matter vide Mutation Case No.15424 of 2025 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, Chaitanya Behera and others, if any, according to the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.3) on dated 08.10.2025 and to produce the certified copy of this judgment for the purpose of receiving the directions of (Opposite Party No.3) as to further proceedings of the Mutation Case No.15424 of 2025 on the basis of the observations made in the judgment of this writ petition.

As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.