Pending DRT proceedings alone do not bar mutation based on an operative sale certificate.

Opposite Party No. 3’s property was mortgaged to UCO Bank to secure a loan.

Following default, the Bank auctioned the property, and the petitioner, the highest bidder, received a sale certificate dated 19 November 2019, which was registered on 5 December 2019.

The petitioner’s mutation was initially allowed on 7 July 2020.

The appellate authority later set that order aside, but the High Court, in an earlier writ proceeding, directed the Tahasildar to reconsider the matter independently.

On reconsideration, the Tahasildar rejected mutation because proceedings challenging the auction were pending before the DRT and a criminal case concerning the property was pending.

The petitioner challenged that order.

1. Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the petitioner’s failure to pursue the statutory appeal and revision remedies.

2. Whether a registered sale certificate could be disregarded for mutation purposes solely because its validity was under challenge before the DRT and a related criminal case was pending.

Under Rules 41 and 42 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, an order of the mutation authority may be appealed, with further revision available under Section 32 of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act; however, a writ petition may be entertained where a pure question of law arises, as recognised in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority & Ors.

Rule 34 of the OSS Rules governs correction of finally published records of rights.

Mutation is fiscal in nature and neither creates nor extinguishes title.

Under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the DRT may examine the legality of measures taken under that Act and grant consequential relief, including setting aside an auction sale.

Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th. LR v. Arthur Import and Export Co. & Ors. does not establish an absolute rule that mutation must be withheld whenever a civil proceeding concerning the land is pending; its observations must be read in their factual context.

The Court treated the question whether the Tahasildar could disregard a registered sale certificate solely due to pending proceedings as a pure question of law and therefore entertained the writ petition despite the available statutory remedies.

The sale certificate remained operative because neither the DRT nor another competent forum had set it aside, and no order restraining mutation had been shown.

The pending criminal case amounted to an allegation, not proof invalidating the transaction.

Since mutation does not determine title, the Tahasildar was not required to adjudicate the auction’s validity and could not reject the claim solely because that validity was contested.

The Tahasildar’s approach also failed to give effect to the earlier direction to reconsider the matter independently.

It quashed the order dated 20 September 2025, restored the mutation order dated 7 July 2020, and directed the Tahasildar to correct the record of rights in the petitioner’s favour within two weeks of production of a certified copy.

The Court clarified that the correction would not constitute an adjudication or declaration of title and left the validity of the subsequent sale deeds to the competent forum.