[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rabindranath Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 24 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.37063 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Rabindranath Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. S.K.Sarangi, Sr.Adv.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. G.Mohanty, S.C.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :24.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :24.12.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for
quashing the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case
No.4658 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) and to
direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) to keep the R.o.R. of the
case land vide Khata No.617/166 Plot No.1399/3515 in Mouza Chandaka
under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha, as it was prior to
the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of
2025.
Page 1 of 7
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the case land i.e. Plot
No.1399/3515 Ac1.3680 decimals under Khata No.617/166 was in the
name of the late father of the Petitioner i.e. Ratnakar Behera under
Dakhal Satwa Sunya status and kisam thereof as Baje Fasal-3. But, on
the basis of the Notification dated 02.07.2025 issued by the Government
in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-
CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-23868/R&DM, the O.P. No.3 initiated a Suo
Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 and as per order passed in
Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025, the O.P. No.3
(Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) changed the status of Khata No.617/166 Plot
No.1399/3515 from Dakhal Satwa Sunya to Pattadar status and prepared
new R.o.R. vide Annexure-3 correcting the status thereof from Dakhal
Satwa Sunya to Pattadar.
For which, the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ
petition praying for quashing the impugned order passed in Suo Moto
Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 as well as to the corrected R.o.R.
vide Annexure-3 and to keep the record and status of the case land under
Khata No.617/166 as it was prior to the impugned order passed in Suo
Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 on the basis of Notification
dated 02.07.2025.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Page 2 of 7
4. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, prior to the impugned
order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 by the
O.P. No.3 ( Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar), the status in the R.o.R. of the case
land vide Khata No.617/166 was under Dakhal Satwa Sunya status, to
which, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) has changed from
Dakhal Satwa Sunya status to pattadar status on the basis of its
subsequent Notification dated 02.07.2025 of Revenue and Disaster
Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-
23868/R&DM of the Government.
5. The law concerning the effect of resolution and notification of the
Government has already been clarified in the ratio of the following
decisions:-
(i) In a case between Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora and another Vrs.
State of Haryana and others passed in Writ Petition Nos.6436-37
of 1980 and Civil Appeal Nos.3095-96 of 1980 decided on 26th
April, 1984 that,
Accrued rights cannot be taken away by Government by
making amendment of the rules with retrospective effect.
(ii) In a case between State of Gujarat and another Vrs. Raman
Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others reported in 1983 (2) SCC 33 that,
Government cannot take away the accrued rights of the
petitioner and the appellant by making amendment of the Rules
with retrospective effect.
(iii) In a case between State of Madya Pradesh Vrs. Yogendra
Shrivastava reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 that,
Rights and benefits which have already been earned or
acquired under the existing Rules cannot be taken away by
amending the Rules with retrospective effect.
(iv) In a case between Baisnab Charan Panda and Ors. Vrs. State
of Orissa and Ors. reported in 130 (2020)CLT564 that,
Page 3 of 7
the resolution should have been prospective and could not
have taken away the benefit already accrued to the party without
involving the person likely to be affected in such process.
(v) In a case between Kamal Kishore Vrs. State and Others
reported in (1995) 02 J & K CK 0008 that,
the accrued rights and the benefits vested cannot be taken
away be amendment to rules retrospectively.
(vi) In a case between Prestige Estates Projects Limited, through
its Vice President, The Falcon House, No.1 Main Guard Cross
Road, Bangalore Vrs. State of Tamilnadu and another (Madras)
passed in W.P. Nos.25677 & 25678 of 2012 decided on 13.12.2012
that,
accrued rights cannot be taken away by subsequent
amendment/orders of the authorities.
(vii) In a case between Chandra Prakash Rath Vrs. State of Odisha
and Ors. passed in W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025 that,
The operation of all the notifications and resolutions of the
Government are prospective in nature, the same will not effect the
rights already accrued prior to the Notifications and Resolutions of
the Government.
So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions, the operation of all the notification and resolutions of
the Government are prospective in nature, but the same will have no
retrospective effect.
6. It is the judicial coronary that, when the initial order is held to be
illegal, then the documents/orders prepared on the basis of the said initial
orders shall be deemed to be non-est in the eye of law.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Badrinath Vrs. Government of Tamilnadu
and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 that,
Page 4 of 7
once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of
time by order of a superior authority, any intermediate action taken in
the meantime would fall to the ground. This principle of consequential
orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is
equally applicable to administrative orders.
(ii) In a case between State of Kerala Vrs. Puthenkavu N.S.S.
Karayogam and another reported in (2001) 10 SCC 191 that,
once the main impugned order is set aside any other
consequential order made pursuant to the same would automatically
become ineffective. (Para 9)
(iii) In a case between Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by LRs Vrs.
Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by LRs reported in 2005 (3) SCC 422
that,
if remand order was bad under law, then all further proceedings
consequent thereto would be non-est and have to be necessarily set
aside.
(iv) In a case between State of Punjab Vrs. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar & Ors. etc. reported in 2012 (51) OCR (SC) 220 that,
if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and
consequential proceedings would fall through for the reasons that
illegality strikes at the root of the order.
(v) In a case between Chandra Prakash Rath Vrs. State of Odisha
and Ors. passed in W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025 that,
When, the Authority has no power for correction of the R.o.R. on
the basis of subsequent notification, then the correction made by such
Authority in the R.o.R. through subsequent notifications to be held as
illegal.
7. In this matter at hand, when much prior to the passing of the
impugned order in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 and
much prior to the correction of the status thereof of the Khata No.617/166
from Dakhal Satwa Sunya status to pattadar status, the R.o.R. of Khata
No.617/166 was under Dakhal Satwa Sunya status in favour of the
Petitioner, then at this juncture, in view of the propositions of law
enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, on the basis of the
subsequent Notification issued by the Government in Revenue and
Page 5 of 7
Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-CHS-PGOT-
0303-2020-23868
/R&DM,dated 02.07.2025, the Dakhal Satwa Sunya
status under Khata No.617/166 should not have been changed by the
O.P. No.3 ( Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar).
For which, the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation
Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3)
for correction of the status of the R.o.R. of the case land vide Khata
No.617/166 from Dakhal Satwa Sunya status to pattadar status as well as
preparation of the R.o.R. vide Annexure-3 making correction of the same
cannot be sustainable under law.
8. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference
with the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case
No.4658 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) as well as
the preparation of the corrected R.o.R. (Annexure-3) through this writ
petition filed by the petitioner.
9. So, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The
same is to be allowed.
10. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case
No.4658 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) and the
corrected R.o.R. (Annexure-3) on the basis of the impugned order passed
in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 are quashed.
Due to quashing of the impugned order passed in Suo Moto
Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
(O.P. No.3) and the corrected R.o.R. (Annexure-3), the O.P. No.3
(Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) is directed through issuance of writ of
mandamus for preparation of the R.o.R. of Khata No.617/166 under
Dakhal Satwa Sunya status correcting the same from pattadar status, as it
was prior to the passing of the impugned order in Suo Moto Mutation
Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 and the said O.P. No.3 is directed to correct
the R.o.R. of the Khata No.617/166 preparing the same under the Dakhal
Satwa Sunya status within a period of a week positively from the date of
production of the certified copy of this judgment before the O.P. No.3.
11. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
24.12.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
