GIRI SHANKAR SAHUB 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 at Bhawanipatna(Opposite Party No.2) for receiving the application for mutation and to register the same, but, when the Tahasildar, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna(Opposite Party No.2) did not receive the application for mutation, then, without getting any way, he(petitioner) filed this writ petition praying for directing the Tahasildar, Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna(Opposite Party No.2) to accept his application for mutation and to register the same and after registration of the same to proceed with the same as per law.

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

(3.) The law concerning the duty of the Tahasildar for the acceptance of the application for mutation, if filed by a person and to act upon the same has alreadybeen 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 the that person to seek legal redressal.(Para-5).