Orissa High Court
*** vs Sub-Collector on 21 November, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11353 of 2018
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Sebati Panda and others
... Petitioners
-VERSUS-
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. S.Pattanaik, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.A.R.Dash,Advocate (for O.P. No.2)
Mr. S.Nayak, ASC
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 21.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 21.11.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners
praying for quashing the impugned order dated 29.07.2013
(Annexure-6) passed in Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009 by
the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.1) on the
ground that, the impugned order under Annexure-6 is a
nullity, because, the same has been passed against a dead
man i.e. against the dead Respondent of the appeal i.e.
Batakrushna Panda.
Because, the Respondent Batakrushna Panda in
Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009 expired on dated 04.04.2013,
but, the impugned final order under Annexure-6 was passed
in that Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009 on dated 29.07.2013,
which is much after the death of the Respondent
Batakrushna Panda.
For which, the impugned final order passed on dated
29.07.2013 (Annexure-6) in Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009 by
the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.1) is a nullity,
because, the same has been passed against the dead man.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the
learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.2 and the learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State.
3. None of the counsels of any of the Parties disputed to the
date of death i.e. 04.04.2013 of the Respondent Batakrushna
Panda in Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009, which is prior to the
passing of the final order dated 29.07.2013 under Annexure-6
in the Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009.
4. It appears from the Annexure-5 i.e. from the death
certificate that, Batakrushna Panda had expired on dated
04.04.2013.
5. It is the settled proposition of law that, any judgment or
order passed either in favour of or against a dead man is a
nullity and the same is to be treated as 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 Raniya Bai Vrs. Tekmani
Rathore and others reported in 2023 Live Law (M.P)
64 that,
Any decree passed in favour of or against a deed person
is a nullity.
(II) In a case between Gurnam Singh (dead)
through LRs and others Vrs. Gurbachan Kaur (dead)
by LRs reported in (2017) 3 SCC 414 that,
Any decision in favour of and/or against dead person
renders such decision nullity. Such decision being nullity
can be challenged at any time whenever they are sought
to be enforced.
6. Here in this matter at hand, when, the impugned order
dated 29.07.2013 under Annexure-6 has been passed in
Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009 by the Sub-Collector,
Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.1) against the dead Respondent
Batakrushna Panda, then, at this juncture, in view of the
principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the decisions
referred to supra, the impugned order dated 29.07.2013
(Annexure-6) passed in Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009 by the
Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.1) cannot be
sustainable under law. For which, The same is liable to
quashed.
Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the
petitioners. The same is to be allowed.
7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
allowed.
8. The impugned order dated 29.07.2013 (Annexure-6)
passed in Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009 by the Sub-
Collector, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.1) is quashed.
The matter vide Mutation Appeal No.61 of 2009 is
remitted back to the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party
No.1) for deciding the same afresh as per law after
substituting the LRs of the deceased respondent Batakrushna
Panda as expeditiously as possible within a period of two
months from the date of impleadment of the LRs of the
deceased Respondent i.e. Batakrushna Panda providing all
the Parties an opportunity of being heard in full compliances
of the principles of natural justice.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
Digitally Signed High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 21.11.
Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO2025// Binayak Sahoo
Reason: Authentication
Jr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Nov-2025 11:45:28
