AJITA KUMAR SAHOO 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 Tahasildar, Nayagarh (Opposite Party No.3) to register his application for mutation, to which, he(petitioner) had presented before the Tahasildar, Nayagarh (Opposite Party No.3) on dtd. 25/10/2024 and which is with him (Tahasildar, Nayagarh, Opposite Party No.3) in its office, as till yet since 25/10/2024, the Tahasildar, Nayagarh (Opposite Party No.3) is not registering the said application for mutation of the petitioner as a mutation case.

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

(3.) Law relating to non-registration of application for mutation of any person like the present petitioner in this writ petition 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 for mutation is filed before the Tahasildar, it is the duty of the Tahasildar to accept and register the same as mutation case and after registering the same as mutation case, the Tahasildar shall proceed with the same for its final disposal as per law.