CUTTACK, India, May 26 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on April 23:

1. Both the writ applications involve common facts for which both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34733 of 2025 seeks to challenge the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in Mutation Case No.12024 of 2025. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7001 of 2026 seeks to challenge the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar in Mutation Appeal No.365 of 2023.

3. The facts, common to both the writ applications are that one Binodini Pattanaik being the owner of the case land appertaining to Plot No.516/ 1682 under Khata No.474/ 3809 in Mouza-Patia, Bhubaneswar transferred the same in favour of Neelam Kumar Swain (Petitioner in W.P(C) No.34733 of 2025) vide RSD dated 02.07.2021. The petitioner applied for mutation in Mutation Case No.16560 of 2021, which was allowed and ROR was issued in her favour. The petitioner's attempt to take possession of the property was obstructed by M/s. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., (Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7001 of 2026) on the ground that it had purchased the property from M/s. Trishna Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. on the strength of a General Power of Attorney dated 25.06.2002 allegedly executed by Binodini Pattanaik. Since said Binodini Pattanaik denied knowledge about the Power of Attorney, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No- 34733 of 2025 filed a civil suit being C.S. No.1760 of 2024 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar. The suit is pending.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7001 of 2026 however, filed Mutation Appeal No.365 of 2023 challenging the order passed by the Tahasildar allowing the mutation case in favour of Neelam Kumar Swain. The Sub-Collector, by order dated 13.12.2024 set aside the order of the Tahasildar and remitted the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh hearing. According to Neelam Kumar Swain, the order of the appellate authority was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing. The order of the Tahasildar passed in the mutation case on remand was also passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7001 of 2026 contends that the Sub-Collector failed to exercise the statutory mandate cast upon him and instead of considering the merits of the grounds raised by the appellant, arbitrarily remitted the matter for fresh enquiry.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x05YyClwOFnfzAxnBAsER6Z7Qv1wsuWmpNwrs0E3LztB&caseno=WP(C)/34733/2025&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010874582025&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.