IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6705 of 2026 Suresh Chandra Pattnaik …. Petitioner Represented by Mr. S. Jena, Advocate -Versus – State of Odisha and another …. Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. A.R. Dash, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 30.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for mutation in Mutation Case No.1348 of 2024 by the Tahasildar, Nuapada. 4. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the petitioner’s application for mutation was filed on the basis of decree passed in Civil Suit No.119 of 2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nuapada. The Tahasildar, Nuapada preferred an appeal against such decree being RFA No.19 of 2023 before the learned District Judge, Nuapada but the same came to be dismissed on 27.02.2024. The petitioner therefore, again filed the application for mutation but the same was rejected, inter alia, with the following observations: - “In pursuance to the instructions issued by the Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide their Letter No. 16449/RDM dt.07.05.2018, the competency of the Order No. 1. Tahasildar has been laid down and limited to file appeal in consultation with Government Pleader, in cases, where application for mutation is filed based on Court Order directing Mutation of Government land in the name of private person.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tahasildar has ignored the relevant statutory provision being proviso to Rule 35 of the OSS Rules, which casts a mandate on the mutating authority to carry out the decree of the civil Court. He further submits the no further appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. 6. Mr. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the Tahasildars have been empowered to prefer appeals in cases where application for mutation are filed based on Court order as per Revenue Department Notification dated 07.05.2018. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that an executive instruction cannot override the statutory provision in any manner. Rule 35 of the OSS Rules, which is relevant, is reproduced below:- “35. Registration of proceedings:- All proceedings commenced on a report, application or otherwise under this Chapter shall be registered as mutation cases and each such case shall be numbered and entered in register in Form No.8 to be called the Mutation Register : Provided that changes in any entry of the record-of- rights arising out of an order to decree of Revenue or a Civil Court or the order of a Tribunal constituted under any law for the time being in force shall be numbered and entered in the Register as separate cases and carried out by the Tahasildar immediately on receipt of such order or decree, as the case may be, and it shall not be necessary to commence a Mutation Proceeding for that purpose.” 8. The OSS Rules being sub-ordinate legislation cannot be superseded by any executive instruction. Therefore, notwithstanding anything contained in the Revenue Department Notification dated 07.05.2018, the mandate of Rule-35 as quoted above, has to be complied with, more so, when there is no prohibitory order of the competent civil Court. 9. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of remitting the matter to the Tahasildar, Nuapada to consider the application for mutation afresh specifically taking note of the provision under Rule-35 of the OSS Rules. The mutation case shall be disposed of within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge BC.TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer