PRATAP KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Sub-collector, Sundargarh(Opposite Party No.2) to register mutation appeal, which was filed by the petitioner on dtd. 10/10/2018 challenging the final order dtd. 23/6/2014 passed in Mutation Case No.436 of 2013 by the Tahasildar, Lephripada(Opposite Party No.3). Because, till yet, the Sub-Collector, Sundargarh(Opposite Party No.2) is not registering his mutation appeal, which was filed by him(petitioner) on dtd. 10/10/2018. For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the Sub-Collector, Sundargarh (Opposite Party No.2) through issuance of a writ of mandamus for registration of the mutation appeal on the basis of the appeal memo submitted by him(petitioner) on dtd. 10/10/2018.

(2.) Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(3.) The law relating to non-registration of a case or appeal on presentation by the applicant or appellant has already been clarified in a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav vrs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others : reported in 2025(3) Civil Court Cases-159 (Allahabad) that, whenever an application or appeal is filed by any party before any authority or court, then it is the duty of such court or authority to register the same and after registration, the authority shall proceed with the same for its disposal as per law.