IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4972 of 2026 Nachhi Gadanayak & others …. Petitioners Mr. P. R. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 24.03.2026 02. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioners with the following prayer:- “In the facts and circumstances narrated above it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the necessary record and after hearing may be issued writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ(s) may be issued with direction to the opp-parties-to take appropriate step regarding upon the representation filed by the petitioner under Annexure-2, and to render all possible assistance to the petitioner to protest his right, which are at stake. And may further be pleased to pass any other order(s), direction(s) as deemed fit and proper.” 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Government land was settled in favour of their father namely, Kesab p. 2 Gadanayak in the year 1999 vide order dated 25.8.1999 passed in Lease Case No.1526/1998. However, after the death of their father, they filed Mutation Case No.3 of 2025, which was allowed vide order dated 21.01.2025 by the Tahasildar, Hindol (Opposite Party No.3). Accordingly, the RoR was corrected. It is the apprehension of the Petitioners that because of the noting in Column No.6 of the Corrected RoR, they would not be able to alienate the said land. Hence, they have approached the Sub-Collector, Hindol seeking permission to alienate the land vide Annexure-2, which is allegedly pending since 25.08.2025. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, drawing attention of this Court to corrected RoR, at Annexure-1, submits that a condition was stipulated in the previous RoR that if the land is proposed to be sold within 10 years with effect from 25.08.1999 without obtaining permission of the Revenue Authority, the same shall be invalid, as has been indicated in the special remark Column No.6. In the corrected RoR, the previous remark regarding restriction to sell the land remained uncorrected. Hence, apprehending that the concerned Sub-Registrar may not register the sale deed for alienation of the suit land, the Petitioners gave a representation to the Sub-Collector, Hindol on 25.08.2025 seeking permission to alienate the suit land in Mouza Gobardhanpur, vide Khata No.188, Plot No.538/1040, Kisama-Gharabari of an area of Ac.0.04 decimal in the district of Dhenkanal, which is still pending. p. 3 5. Per contra, Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the prayer made in the Writ Petition is premature, as the same is based on mere apprehension. That apart, the Petitioners ought to have approached the Tahasildar, Hindol seeking clarification/correction of the remarks made as against Column No.6, as the Mutation Case No.3 of 2025 was disposed of on 21.01.2025. 6. Admittedly, there is an incorrect remark in the corrected RoR by imposing restriction with regard to alienation of the land, as was appearing in the original RoR, i.e., before correction of the same in terms of the order passed in Mutation Case No.3 of 2025. Instead of approaching the Tahasildar, Hindol, the Petitioners have wrongly given a representation to the Sub-Collector, Hindol seeking permission to alienate the said land. Rather, they should have moved before the Tahasildar, Hindol for correction of the remark in Column No.6 of the RoR. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, and the materials on record, on consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission permitting the Petitioners to move appropriate application before the Tahasildar, Hindol (Opposite Party No.3) for correction of the remark column of the RoR as at Annexure-1, with regard to the restriction imposed for alienating the aforesaid land. It is made clear that, if such an application is moved within two weeks hence, the Tahasildar, Hindol p. 4 (Opposite Party No.3) shall do well to consider the said application and do the needful in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said application. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. Mili (S.K. MISHRA) JUDGE Designation: Secretary Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.