Orissa High Court
Kamalakanta Sethy vs Collector on 24 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27452 of 2025
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, 1950)
Kamalakanta Sethy .... Petitioner
-versus-
Collector, Khurda and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. P. K. Nanda,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak,
Learned Additional Sanding Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :24.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :24.11.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for
quashing(setting aside) the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed
Page 1 of 5
in Mutation Case No.11916 of 2022 by the Additional Tahsildar,
Jatani.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted
the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner had
purchased the case land through registered sale deed through RSD
No.18217 dated 27.10.2009 from one Kailash Bhoi, who had got the
case land on lease as per order passed in Lease Case No.796 of
1967-68 on the basis of such lease. The said land was recorded in the
name of Kailash Bhoi under Khata No.450, Plot No.543/1062
Ac.0.100 decimals in Mouza-Uttarmundamuhan under Jatani
Tahasil. Kailash Bhoi sold the same through RSD No.18217 dated
27.10.2009
to the petitioner. After purchase, the petitioner applied
for mutation of the case land to his name by filing Mutation Case
No.11916 of 2022 before the Tahasildar, Jatani. The Tahasildar,
Jatani transferred the said case to the Additional Tahasildar, Jatani
for its disposal, but, the Additional Tahasildar, Jatani rejected the
said Mutation Case No.11916 of 2022 of the petitioner through one
line impugned order, i.e., "the applied plot is a lease land. Hence, it
is rejected."
4. The above impugned order is a very short and cryptic order
without application of mind. Because, proper reasons have not been
assigned by the Additional Tahasildar, Jatani for rejecting the
mutation case of the petitioner.
5. It is the settled propositions of law that, an unreasoned and
cryptic order like the impugned order cannot be sustainable under
law. Because, any court or any authority including any
administrative or revenue authority cannot pass any cryptic or
unreasoned order without assigning proper reasons or the basis for
passing such order.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Surendra Kumar Jain vrs. Santobai and
another : reported in INSC(S.C.)-230 at Para No.12 that, an order
must not be passed in a cryptic manner without recording any reason
and must reflect the application of mind.
(ii) In a case between C. Saravana Kumar vrs. The
Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Saidapet,
Chennai and another decided in W.P.(C) No.25723 of 2008 and
M.P. No.2 of 2008(Mad.) at Para No.5 that, the act of passing a
cryptic order itself amounts to violation of Principles of Natural
Justice.
(iii) In a case between State of Uttarakhand and another vrs.
Ravi Kumar(deceased) through legal representatives and others :
reported in (2023) 18 scc-281(AT Paras 69 and 70) that, casual
findings/observations made by the Revenue Authority or the Civil
Court shall not be accepted at their face value. For which, the matter
was remanded back for its fresh disposal.
6. As per law an unreasoned or cryptic is to be held as an order
against the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that,
the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed in Mutation Case
No.11916 of 2022 by the Additional Tahsildar, Jatani being a cryptic
and unreasoned order cannot be sustainable under law. The same is
liable to be quashed(set aside).
7. Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on
contest.
The impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed in Mutation
Case No.11916 of 2022 by the Additional Tahsildar, Jatani is
quashed(set aside).
The matter vie Mutation Case No.11916 of 2022 is remitted
back to the Tahasildar, Jatani to decide the same afresh as per law
and to pass a reasoned order through proper adjudication of mind
after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof
complying the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of
filing of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
The parties in this writ petition are directed to appear before
the Additional Tahasildar, Jatani in Mutation Case No.11916 of
2022 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Additional
Tahasildar, Jatani as to further proceedings of the Mutation Case
No.11915 of 2022.
9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed
of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 24th of November, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
