Orissa High Court
Chandra Prakash Rath vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 14 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Chandra Prakash Rath .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Budhiram Das,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :07.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :14.11.2025
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 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13) passed in
Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) and to direct the Addl. Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) to keep the R.o.R. of the case land vide Khata
No.474/4656 Plot No.299/1823/2663 and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974 in
Mouza Patia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha, as it
was prior to the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13).
Page 1 of 8
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the case land i.e. Plot
No.299/1823/2663 Ac.0.06 decimals and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974
Ac0.02 decimals in total Ac0.08 decimals under Khata No.474/4656 was
under Sthitiban status in the name of the petitioner and kisam of the said
two plots was Baje Fasal Dui.
As per the judgment dated 16.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.11999
of 2025, this Court had directed the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P.
No.5) for final disposal of the conversion proceeding under Section 8-A
of the OLR Act, 1960 of the petitioner within two months from the date
of filing of the certified copy of the judgment of the said writ petition
according to the observations made therein on the basis of the
observations made in the order of the earlier writ petition vide W.P.(C)
No.31109 of 2024 and to report about the final disposal of the said
conversion proceeding to the Court. But, when the petitioner submitted
the certified copy of the judgment dated 16.05.2025 of W.P.(C) No.11999
of 2025 for disposal of his conversion proceeding vide OLR Case
No.2001 of 2022 under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 in respect of
the case land for conversion of the same from Baje Fasal Dui to
Homestead, the O.P. No.5 (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) suo moto
initiated a mutation case vide Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025
and as per Order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13), the O.P. No.5 (Addl.
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) changed the Sthitiban Satwa status of the
Page 2 of 8
petitioner from Khata No.474/4656 containing the Plot
No.299/1823/2663 and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974 to Pattadar status on
the basis of the Notification issued by the Government in Revenue and
Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-CHS-PGOT-
0303-2020-23868
/R&DM, dated 02.07.2025 and prepared new R.o.R.
vide Annexure-14 correcting the stithiban status of the petitioner from the
same to Pattardar.
For which, the petitioner has challenged the same by filing this writ
petition praying for quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2025
(Annexure-13) passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 as
well as to the corrected R.o.R. vide Annexure-14 and to keep the record
and status of the case land under Khata No.474/4656 as it was under
sthitiban status in the name of the petitioner prior to the impugned order
dated 22.08.2025.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
4. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, prior to 22.08.2025 i.e.
prior to the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605
of 2025 by the O.P. No.5 (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar), the status in
the R.o.R. of the case land vide Khata No.474/4656 in the name of the
petitioner was under sthitiban status, to which, the Addl. Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) has changed from sthitiban status to pattadar
status on the basis of the Notification issued by the Government in
Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-
CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-23868/R&DM,dated 02.07.2025.
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,
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.
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,
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.
7. In this matter at hand, when much prior to the passing of the
impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13) in Suo Moto Mutation
Case No.8605 of 2025 and much prior to the correction of the status
thereof of the Khata No.474/4656 standing in the name of the petitioner
from sthitiban status to pattadar status, the R.o.R. of Khata No.474/4656
was in the name of the petitioner as well as in his vendor under sthitiban
status since the year 2014, 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 Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-
CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-23868/R&DM,dated 02.07.2025, the sthitiban
status under Khata No.474/4656 of the petitioner should not have been
changed by the O.P. No.5 (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar).
For which, the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13)
passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 by the Addl.
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) for correction of the status of the
R.o.R. of the case land vide Khata No.474/4656 standing in the name of
the petitioner from sthitiban status to pattadar status and correction of the
R.o.R. from sthitiban status to pattadar status as well as preparation of the
R.o.R. vide Annexure-14 making correction of the same cannot be
sustainable under law.
8. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference
with the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13) passed in Suo
Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) as well as the preparation of the corrected
R.o.R. (Annexure-14) 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 dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13) passed in
Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) and the corrected R.o.R. (Annexure-14) on the
basis of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13) are
quashed.
Due to quashing of the Annexure-13 & 14, the O.P. No.5 (Addl.
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) is directed through issuance of writ of
mandamus for preparation of the R.o.R. of Khata No.474/4656 in the
name of the petitioner under sthitiban status correcting the same from
pattadar status, as it was prior to the passing of the impugned order dated
22.08.2025 and the said O.P. No.5 is directed to correct the said R.o.R. of
the Khata No.474/4656 preparing the same under the sthitiban status in
the name of the petitioner within a period of a week positively from the
date of production of the certified copy of this judgment before the O.P.
No.5.
11. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
14.11.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 14-Nov-2025
