Orissa High Court
Premalata Biswal vs State Of Odisha on 30 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7816 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Premalata Biswal .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha, represented through .... Opposite Parties
its Commissioner-cum-Secretary
Revenue and Disaster Management
Department, Government of Odisha,
Bhubaneswar and others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. A. Nayak,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak
Learned Additional Standing
Counsel for O.P. No.1 to 4
Mr. N. Panda, Advocate for O.P.
No.5
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 18.06.2025 / date of judgment : 30.06.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner against the Opposite Parties
praying for quashing(setting aside) the order dated 25.11.2022
(Annexure-6) passed in Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 by the
Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) and also to quash the order dated
30.11.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022(Annexure-7) by the
Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2).
2. The case land vide Khata No.58, Plot No.462 in Mouza-Natery
under Banki Tahasil in the district of Cuttack was ordered for mutation to
the name of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4)
as per final order dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Case
No.5013 of 2021 on the basis of the Sale Deed No.10412101776 dated
15.11.2021 in his favour. After such order for mutation passed on dated
22.12.2021(Annexure-3) in Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021 by the
Tasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4), new RoR of the case land vide
Khata No.263/341(Annexure-4) was prepared by the Opposite Party
No.4(Tahasildar, Banki) in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the
said final order passed in Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021 on dated
22.12.2021(Annexure-3).
3. That, subsequent thereto, the said Opposite Party No.4 (Tahasildar,
Banki) initiated a Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 suo motu for recalling
the earlier mutation order (Annexure-3) passed by him(Opposite Party
No.4) in respect of the case land in Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021 in
favour of the petitioner and also passed final order in that suo motu
Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 on dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) for
deletion of the name of the petitioner from the RoR No.263/341,(which
was prepared after final order of mutation passed by the Opposite Party
No.4 in Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021) and to prepare the RoR of the
case land in the name of the State and indirectly recalled the final order
passed in Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021 by him(Opposite Party No.4)
without giving any notice to the petitioner for hearing of that suo motu
Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 and also without giving any opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner in that suo motu Mutation Case No.1022
of 2022.
On the basis of such order dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) passed
by the Tahasildar Banki(Opposite Party No.4) in suo motu Mutation Case
No.1022 of 2022, the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) passed an
order on dated 30.11.2022(Annexure-7) in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 for
removal of the name of the petitioner from the RoR of the case land and
to record the same under Government Khata No.279 in the name of the
Government/State and directed Sub-Register, Banki not to entertain any
transaction in respect of the case land.
4. When, the petitioner came to know about the above impugned
order dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) passed in suo motu Mutation Case
by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) and the impugned order
dated 30.11.2022(Annexure-7) passed in Misc. Case No.63 of
2022(Annexure-7) by the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2),
he(petitioner) challenged the same by filing this writ petition against the
Opposite Parties praying for quashing Annexures-6 and 7 passed by the
Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) and Collector, Cuttack (Opposite
Party No.2) on the grounds that, after passing the order for mutation of
the case land in Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021 on dated
22.12.2021(Annexure-3) by the Opposite Party No.4 in favour of the
petitioner, the said Opposite Party No.4 (Tahasildar, Banki) had no
authority or jurisdiction under law to initiate Mutation Case No.1022 of
2022 suo motu for recalling the earlier mutation order passed by him
(Opposite Party No.4) on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) in Mutation
Case No.5013 of 2021 and he(Opposite Party No.4) should not have
recalled the final order passed on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) in
Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021 without giving any opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner and without complying the principles of natural
justice. Likewise, the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) also
should not have passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure-
7) in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 without giving any opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner and as such, the impugned the orders vide
Annexures-6 and 7 passed by the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 2 are without
jurisdiction, for which, the said Annexures-6 and 7 are liable to be
quashed.
5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsels for the Opposite Parties including the learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
6. It is the undisputed case of the parties that,
"Final order dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) was passed by
the Opposite Party No.4(Tahasildar, Banki) in Mutation Case
No.5013 of 2021 for recording the case land in the name of the
petitioner.
On the basis of such final order dated 22.12.2021
(Annexure-3) passed by the Opposite Party No.4 in Mutation
Case No.5013 of 2021, RoR vide Khata No.263/341 in respect of
the case land was prepared in the name of the petitioner.
Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 was initiated by the same
Opposite Party No.4 suo motu much after preparation of the new
RoR vide Khata No.263/341 of the case land in the name of the
petitioner on the basis of the order for mutation passed in
Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021 for recalling the said final order
passed on dated 22.12.2021 in Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021.
As per order dated 25.11.2022 passed in suo motu
Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022, the Opposite Party
No.4(Tahasildar, Banki) directed for removal/deletion of name of
the petitioner from the newly prepared RoR of the case
land(which was prepared on the basis of his order as per
Annexure-3) and to prepare the RoR of the case land in the name
of the State cancelling/recalling the final order dated 22.12.2021
passed in Mutation Case No.5013 of 2021 indirectly.
The impugned order dated 30.11.2022(Annexure-7) was
passed by the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) in Misc.
Case No.63 of 2022 in respect of the case land for preparation of
the RoR of the same in the name of the State/Government on the
basis of the order dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) passed in suo
motu Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 by the Tahasildar,
Banki(Opposite Party No.4)."
7. It appears from the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure-
6) passed by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) in suo motu
Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 that, the said order dated 25.11.2022
(Annexure-6) has been passed by him(Opposite Party No.4) for
removal/deletion of the name of the petitioner from the RoR of the case
land and to prepare the RoR for the same in the name of the
State/Government recalling the final order dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-
3) passed by him(Opposite Party No.4) in Mutation Case No.5013 of
2021 indirectly without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without
giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. As such, the
impugned order vide Annexure-6 has been passed by the Opposite Party
No.4 against the petitioner affecting his right already created in his
favour as per order on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) passed in Mutation
Case No.5013 of 2021 without complying the principles of natural
justice.
Likewise, it also appears from the impugned order dated
30.11.2022(Annexure-7) passed in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 by the
Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) that, the said Annexure-7 has
been passed by the Opposite Party No.2 on the basis of the impugned
order vide Annexure-6 of the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4)
without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving any
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. As such, both the orders vide
Annexures-6 and 7 have been passed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 4
respectively against the petitioner behind his back without complying the
principles of natural justice.
8. The law concerning the object of compliance of the principles of
natural justice and the fate / result of the judgments/orders passed without
complying the principles of natural justice has already been clarified by
the Hon'ble Courts and the Apex Court in the ratio of the following
decisions :-
(i) In a case between Justice P.D. Dinakaran vrs. Hon'ble
Judges Inquiry Committee and others : reported in 2011(II)
OLR(S.C.)-445 (Para Nos.22 and 25)--Natural justice is a
branch of public law- Rules of natural justice are basic values-
Principles of natural justice control all actions of public
authorities- Natural justice is a part of law which relates to
administration of justice- Object of rules of natural justice is to
ensure fundamental liberties and rights of subjects- Doctrine of
natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent
miscarriage of justice. The judge should be impartial and
neutral and must be free from bias.
(ii) In a case between Niranjan Tripathy vrs. Regional
Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and
another : reported in 2015(II) OLR-898--Even if there is no
provision for compliance of principles of natural justice, it
implies that, before taking any action, principles of natural
justice has to be complied with by affording an opportunity of
hearing to the parties, otherwise, the action is open to challenge
and is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) In a case between Satyajit Sahoo vrs. State of Orissa
and others : reported in 2016(I)OLR-325 (Para-12)--If a
decision has been taken which affects a party, it would amount
to clear violation of principles of natural justice and the order
passed in violation of salutary provision of natural justice
would be a nullity.
(iv) In a case between Johra and others vrs. State of
Haryana and others : reported in 2019(1) CCC(S.C.)-12 and
2019(1) CLR(S.C.)-380--No order can be passed by any Court
in any judicial proceedings against any party to such
proceedings without hearing and giving such party an
opportunity of hearing.
(v) In a case between Subash Chandra Sahu vrs. Union of
India and others : reported in 2019(I) OLR-728(Para-14)--
The principles of natural justice are those- rules, which have
been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection
of the rights of the individuals against the arbitrary procedure
that may be adopted by the judicial, quashi-judicial and
administrative authority while making an order affecting those
rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from
doing injustice.
(vi) In a case between Uma Nath Pandey and others vrs.
State of U.P. and another : reported in AIR 2009 S.C.-
2375(Para-19)--The purpose of the following principles of
natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.
(vii) In a case between High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad vrs. State of U.P. and others : reported in 2025(1)
Civil Law Judgment(S.C.)-40(Para-16)--Any order passed
without complying the principles of natural justice is to be
treated as illegal.
(viii) In a case between Shivaji vrs. Parwatibai and others :
reported in 2025(2) Civil Law Judgment(S.C.)-528--When a
case is disposed of against any party without giving him/her an
opportunity of hearing, such disposal deserves to be deprecated
in view of 2023 SCC online S.C.-1210 Suresh Lataruji
Ramteke vrs. Sau.Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and others,
for which, matter is required to be remitted back for its decision
afresh.
(ix) In a case between Census Commissioner and others
vrs. R. Krishnamurthy : reported in 2015(1) Civil Law
Times (S.C.)-30--Person likely to suffer from order of Court
and not impleaded as a party has right a to ignore said order as
it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural
justice.(Paras-19 and 20).
(x) In a case between Gobinda Prasad Pattanaik and
another vrs. Collector, Cuttack and others : reported in
112(2011) CLT-276--When Revenue Misc. Case was heard by
the Collector without giving any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners, therefore, the said order passed by the Collector is
set aside and directed the Collector to issue notice to the
petitioners, hear the parties and pass orders afresh as would be
deemed fit and proper in accordance with law.
(xi) In a case between Biswanath Sethi vrs. State of Odisha
and others : reported in 2021(1) OLR-555--Even when an
administrative order is passed affecting the rights of a citizen
without hearing such citizen, the said order shall be treated as
an order without compliance of the principles of natural justice,
which is the gross violation of law.
9. When, the impugned orders dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) and
30.11.2022(Annexure-7) respectively have been passed in suo motu
Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 and Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 by the
Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) and Collector, Cuttack(Opposite
Party No.2) without complying the principles of natural justice, then, in
view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex
Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the impugned orders vide
Annexures-6 and 7 cannot be sustainable under law. For which, the same
are liable to be quashed(set aside) and the matter/case i.e. Mutation Case
No.1022 of 2022 is required to be heard and disposed of afresh as per law
after complying the principles of natural justice.
10. For which, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same must succeed.
11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on
contest.
12. The impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Tahasildar,
Banki(Opposite Party No.4) in Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 vide
Annexure-6 and the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Misc.
Case No.63 of 2022 vide Annexure-7 by the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite
Party No.2) are quashed(set aside).
13. The matter vide Mutation Case No1022 of 2022 is remitted
back(remanded back) to the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) to
decide the same afresh as per law after issuing notice to the petitioner and
others, if any and after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner
and others, if any, complying the principles of natural justice as
expeditiously as possible and the petitioner along with other parties, if
any, are at liberty to agitate their all grievances/grounds permissible
under law on their behalf in respect of their claims before the Tahasildar,
Banki in Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 and the Opposite Party No.4 is
to take its best endeavour to dispose of that Mutation Case No1022 of
2022 finally as expeditiously as possible answering/meeting all the
points/questions raised by the parties including the petitioner before
him(Opposite Party No.4).
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.
15. Registry is to communicate this judgment immediately to the
Tahasildar, Banki (Opposite Party No.4) for the proceeding with the
Mutation Case No.1022 of 2022 as per law in compliance with the
directions made above in this judgment.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 30th of June, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
