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 of rejection to his Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025 passed on dated 12.08.2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3).

Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State.

The petitioner is the purchaser of a portion of plot No.139 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 of the petitioner to sell the same. For which, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar 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 same 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, 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 should not have rejected the mutation application of the petitioner out rightly on the ground of non-according of consent by the co-sharer of the vendor of the petitioner.

When there is no dispute about the purchase of part of plot No.139 from one of the co-owner thereof, then at this juncture, it should have become the duty of the Addl. Tahasildar to mutate the land making the petitioner as co-owner of the R.o.R. with Chaitanya Behera.

For which, the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-3 Series) passed in Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) cannot be sustainable under law.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure-3 Series) passed in Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) is quashed (set aside).

The matter vide Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and others, if any, following the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) on dated 08.10.2025 and to produce the certified copy of this judgment in order to receive the directions of O.P. No.3 as to further proceedings of that Mutation Case No.15422 of 2025.

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