NARFAL BAG 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 Tahasildar, Kalahandi (Opposite Party No.4) to receive the application for mutation of the petitioner vide Annexure-4, as the Tahasildar, Kalahandi (Opposite Party No.4) did not receive the application for mutation of the petitioner from the petitioner.

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

(3.) The law concerning the duty of the Tahasildar to receive the application or applications, if filed by any person and to act upon the same has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:- In a case between Sunil Kumar Yadav Vrs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and others reported in 2025(3) Civil Court Cases-159 (Allahabad) that, Tahasildar cannot refuse to accept the application for mutation filed by a party/person, but he is bound to accept the same and to register the same as per law, then to proceed with the same for its disposal according to law. But, Tahasildar cannot refuse to accept the application for mutation. The oral refusal of the Tahasildar to accept the application for mutation from a person/party shall be amount to violation of the right of that person to seek legal redressal. (Para-5).