The Orissa High Court has set aside an order of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, rejecting a land mutation claim, holding that a revenue authority cannot disregard binding directions issued by superior courts and statutory revisional authorities.
The Court ruled that the Tahasildar acted beyond jurisdiction by invoking provisions of a different statute while deciding a mutation proceeding and ignoring multiple earlier orders that had already settled the issue in favour of the petitioner.
- Case Title: Bibhuti Bhusan Ray v. State of Odisha & Others
- Court: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
- Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 14523 of 2025
- Judge: Justice Sashikanta Mishra
- Date of Judgment: 10 March 2026
Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar’s Mutation Order
The Orissa High Court held that once a superior court or statutory authority directs the recording of land in favour of a person, the Tahasildar cannot reopen or re-adjudicate the issue while dealing with a mutation proceeding.
Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed that the Tahasildar’s refusal to record the land in favour of the petitioner amounted to a “gross illegality” and an impermissible overreach of jurisdiction.
Allowing the writ petition filed by Bibhuti Bhusan Ray, the Court directed the Tahasildar to record the disputed land in the petitioner’s name within one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment.
Case Background
The dispute arose from land that had originally been settled in favour of one Bhaskar Sethi as a lessee under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962 (OGLS Act). After obtaining permission from the competent authority under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (OLR Act) and approval from the Bhubaneswar Development Authority, the original lessee sold the land to the petitioner.
However, in 2002 the land was resumed by the government by invoking powers under Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act. According to the petitioner, the resumption was carried out without serving any notice on him.
Challenging the resumption order, the petitioner approached the High Court through W.P.(C) No. 19386 of 2009. A Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated 29 July 2011, set aside the resumption order insofar as it related to the petitioner’s land. The Court noted that the order was never challenged and had therefore attained finality.
Despite the favourable order, the petitioner faced continuing difficulties in having the land recorded in his name in official records.
Repeated Litigation Over Mutation
Following the 2011 judgment, the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 80 of 2012 before the Tahasildar seeking correction of the Record of Rights (ROR). When no action was taken for several years, he again approached the High Court through W.P.(C) No. 8307 of 2014, which directed the Tahasildar to dispose of the matter within four months.
Meanwhile, during settlement operations in the area, the land was recorded in the government’s name as Abada Jogya Anabadi in the Hal Record of Rights published in 2013.
The petitioner challenged this entry by filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue under Section 15(b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act (OSS Act). The Additional Commissioner acting as the revisional authority, by order dated 29 July 2022, directed the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to verify the original documents and conduct a field enquiry before recording the land in favour of the petitioner.
Pursuant to that order, the petitioner initiated Mutation Case No. 29182 of 2022. When the mutation proceeding was not decided for a long time, he again moved the High Court in W.P.(C) No. 27417 of 2023, which directed the Tahasildar to decide the matter within two months.
Even after the High Court’s direction, the mutation proceeding remained pending, compelling the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings. Eventually, the Tahasildar disposed of the mutation case but rejected the petitioner’s claim, leading to the present writ petition.
Justice Mishra remarked that the case represented the petitioner’s seventh approach to the High Court for substantially the same relief. The Court observed that the very fact that a citizen had to repeatedly knock the doors of the Court was itself “a matter of concern.”
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tahasildar had exceeded his jurisdiction while deciding the mutation case. It was contended that the authority wrongly invoked powers under the OGLS Act even though the mutation proceeding was governed by the OSS Act.
The petitioner further submitted that the Tahasildar’s order was contrary to three earlier binding decisions:
- The Division Bench order of the High Court setting aside the resumption of land.
- The order of the revisional authority under Section 15(b) of the OSS Act directing recording of the land in the petitioner’s favour after verification.
- The subsequent order of the High Court quashing an earlier rejection of the mutation claim.
The State’s counsel fairly acknowledged that under the OSS Act the Tahasildar was required to act in accordance with the directions issued by the revisional authority.
Court’s Examination of Tahasildar’s Powers
The High Court examined the impugned order and noted that the Tahasildar had rejected the mutation claim by stating that the land stood recorded in the government khata and that the petitioner was not using the land for agricultural purposes for which it had originally been leased.
The Tahasildar further claimed that as a statutory authority he was governed by Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act and that there was no restriction on his power to resume leasehold land.
The Court found this reasoning fundamentally flawed.
Justice Mishra explained that mutation proceedings are governed by the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act and the rules framed thereunder, particularly Rule 35 of the OSS Rules, 1962. The rule provides that when a superior court or authority issues an order affecting entries in the Record of Rights, the Tahasildar must carry out the changes immediately without initiating fresh adjudication.
The Court held:
“Plain reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that once a Superior Court/Authority has issued a direction for recording of the land, the Tahasildar has no option but to comply with the same.”
The Court clarified that the revisional authority’s direction to verify documents and conduct a field enquiry did not grant the Tahasildar independent authority to decide the issue afresh.
Jurisdictional Overreach by Tahasildar
Justice Mishra further observed that the Tahasildar had improperly invoked the OGLS Act while dealing with a mutation proceeding under the OSS Act.
The judgment emphasized that resumption of leasehold land under Section 3(B) of the OGLS Act is a separate statutory process. A Tahasildar acting under the OSS Act cannot assume powers under a different statute while deciding mutation proceedings.
The Court strongly criticized the reasoning adopted in the impugned order:
“This unilateral usurpation of power by the Tahasildar cannot be countenanced in law.”
The Court also noted that the Tahasildar incorrectly described his authority and misunderstood the scope of his powers, even misusing terms such as “fitter” instead of “fetter” and “portion” instead of “power.”
According to the Court, the Tahasildar failed to appreciate that mutation proceedings are strictly limited in scope and governed by statutory rules.
High Court’s Findings
After analysing the record and previous orders, the Court concluded that there were three binding decisions in favour of the petitioner:
- The Division Bench judgment setting aside the resumption order
- The revisional authority’s order directing recording of the land in the petitioner’s favour
- The Single Bench order quashing an earlier rejection of the mutation claim
Despite these directions, the Tahasildar again refused to record the land in the petitioner’s name.
The Court therefore held that the impugned order suffered from “gross illegality” and could not be sustained in law.
Final Directions of the Court
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar in the mutation case.
The Court directed the Tahasildar to record the disputed land in favour of the petitioner without further delay and in any case within one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
