RAMAKRUSHNA PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sarangi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients are purchasers of a part in a patch of land, in respect of which there was mention of the deity in the record. Other purchasers got mutation on deletion of the deity's name. In his clients' case, the mutation was allowed but prayer for deletion, rejected.

(2.) On earlier occasion, Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State had drawn attention to order dtd. 13/6/2003 admitting the mutation petition, carrying direction upon the Tahsildar to add the Endowment Commissioner as party and proceed with the case. On query from Court Mr. Sharma submits, the order was made by the Commissioner (L.R.) and Settlement, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack. The Tahsildar on proceeding with the case made impugned order dtd. 3/9/2016, refusing to delete name of the deity in the RoR. In this connection, we reproduce paragraph-4 from order dtd. 29/8/2023.

(3.) Mr. Sharma submits, the writ petition is not maintainable since efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to petitioners. Without prejudice, he relies on judgments of the Supreme Court.