Orissa High Court
Jhunu Padhi vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 31 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.26859 of 2023
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Jhunu Padhi .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. S. N. Sahu,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. G. Mohanty,,
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing and Judgment :31.07.2025
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 dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure-1) passed by
the Tahasildar, Berhampur (O.P. No.4) in Mutation Case No.1575 of
2019 on the ground that, the said impugned order dated 04.06.2019
(Annexure-1) is not a speaking order. Because, that order has been passed
by the O.P. No.4 without assigning any reason.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.
3. In order to bring the impugned order (Annexure-1) into picture, I
thought it proper to place the same on the record, which is as follows:-
"04.06.2019 The case record is put-up today. As per the report of Revenue
Inspector the case is rejected. Close the case and consign it to Record
Room.
Sd/-
Tahasildr, Berhampur"
The above order dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure-1) passed by O.P.
No.4 in Mutation Case No.1575 of 2019 is a non-speaking order, as the
same is not backed/supported by any reason.
For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated 04.06.2019
(Annexure-1) has been passed by the O.P. No.4 without application of
mind as well as without any reason. So, the impugned order vide
Annexure-1 is a non-speaking order.
4. It is the settled propositions of law that, when any order is not
backed/supported by any reason and the same is passed without
application of mind terming that order as non-speaking order, the said
order cannot be sustainable under law. Because as per law, that order is
against the principles of natural justice.
5. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Sebastiani Lakra and Ors. Vrs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd reported and another reported in
2018(4) CCC 50 (SC), every judicial order must contain reason.
No judicial order is complete without reasons.
(ii) In a case between State of Rajasthan Vrs. Rajendra
Prasad Jain reported in (2008)15 SCC 711, reason is the heartbeat
of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.
(iii) In a case between Atul Kuchhal Vrs. Hem Ram and
another reported in 2015(1) CCC 640 (Rajasthan), an order which
does not reveal ground for coming to a conclusion, the same falls
in the category of non-speaking order.
(iv) In a case between U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vrs.
Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors. reported in I (2012) Civ.L.T. 169
(SC) & Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and
others Vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in AIRONLINE 2021
SC 38, an unreasoned order shall be called as non-speaking order.
The same cannot be sustainable under law.
A non-speaking order is held to be an order in violation of
principles of natural justice.
(v) In a case between Andhra Bank, Cuttack Vrs. Raghunath
Tripathy and others reported in 2017 (2) O.J.R. (889), when any
judgment suffers from non-application of mind, the said judgment
cannot be sustainable under law.
6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
above decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court to the impugned
order vide Annexure-1 passed by the Tahasildar, Berhampur (O.P. No.4),
it is held that, the impugned order passed on dated 04.06.2019
(Annexure-1) by the Tahasildar, Berhampur (O.P. No.4) in Mutation
Case No.1575 of 2019 is not sustainable under law.
For which, there is justification under law for making interference
with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same must succeed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The impugned order dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure-1) passed in
Mutation Case No.1575 of 2019 by the Tahasildar, Berhampur (O.P.
No.4) is quashed.
The matter vide Mutation Case No.1575 of 2019 is
remitted/remanded back to the Tahasildar, Berhampur (O.P. No.4) to
decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard
to the parties thereof as expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.
Petitioner is directed to appear before the Tahasildar, Berhampur
(O.P. No.4) in Mutation Case No.1575 of 2019 on dated 07.08.2025 in
order to receive the directions of O.P. No.4 as to further proceedings of
that Mutation Case No.1575 of 2019.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
31.07.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-Aug-2025 10:36:25
