[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Afr Ratna Manjari Prusty vs The Union Of India & Others ...... Opp. ... on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1224 of 2026
W.P.(C) No.1495 of 2026
W.P.(C) No.1497 of 2026
W.P.(C) No.1512 of 2026
W.P.(C) No.1517 of 2026
W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2026
W.P.(C) No.1609 of 2026
W.P.(C) No.1814 of 2026
(Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
---------------
W.P.(C) No.1224 of 2026
AFR Ratna Manjari Prusty ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
____________________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
with Mr. S.S. Kashyap,
Senior Panel Counsel
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.1495 of 2026
Sarojini Nayak ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Sahoo, Advocate
Page 1 of 15
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
with Mr. K. Panda,
Central Government Counsel
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.1497 of 2026
Bidyutprava Satapathy ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.K. Mahapatra,
Senior Panel Counsel
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.1512 of 2026
Deepak @ Diapk Kumar Samal ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. B.B. Mishra, Senior Panel Counsel
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
Page 2 of 15
W.P.(C) No.1517 of 2026
Pratap Chandra Das ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. K.K. Nayak, Senior Panel Counsel
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2026
Dillip Kumar Swain ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
with Mr. S.K. Samantray,
Central Government Counsel
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.1609 of 2026
Biswajit Panda ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Page 3 of 15
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Parhi,
Deputy Solicitor General of India]
with Mr. D. Gochhayat,
Central Government Counsel]
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
W.P.(C) No.1814 of 2026
Sarat Kumar Mohanty ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Union of India & Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.K. Mohanty,
Senior Panel Counsel
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
7 April, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioners seek to challenge the
order dated 07.01.2026 passed in Revenue Misc. Appeal Case
No.07/2025, whereby the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal rejected
the petition filed for grant of leave to prefer appeal, arising out
of Revenue Misc. Case No.695/2025, as well as the
consequential order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the
Tahasildar, Dhenkanal in the said RMC Case, pursuant to the
order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Mutation Appeal No.38/2025
by the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal. The petitioners have further
assailed the eviction notice dated 26.12.2025 issued by the
Opposite Party No.3.
2. Since all the writ petitions involve common
questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are
being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of
convenience, the facts of W.P.(C) No.1224 of 2026 are taken into
consideration for adjudication of the issues involved.
3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the
petitioner claims to have purchased a piece of land measuring
Ac.0.03 decimals out of Hal Plot No.24/308 under Khata
No.103/8 situated at Mouza-Shyamacharanpur under
Dhenkanal Tahasil by virtue of a registered sale deed dated
27.06.2001 and to have been delivered possession thereof. It is
stated that said land was subsequently mutated in her favour
in Mutation Case No.2498/2002 and ROR was issued in her
name, whereafter she has been in peaceful possession of the
same by constructing a shop room thereon and regularly paying
rent and holding tax.
While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was
served with a notice dated 26.12.2025 issued by the Opposite
Party No.3 directing her to vacate the land on the ground that
the same forms part of Railway land. On receipt of the said
notice, the petitioner made enquiries and came to know that her
recorded land had been taken away from her khata and merged
with Khata No.112 standing in the name of the Railway
authorities pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2025 passed in
Mutation Appeal No.38/2025 and the consequential order dated
15.12.2025 passed in RMC Case No.695/2025.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was
neither impleaded as a party nor issued any notice in the
aforesaid proceedings, though her recorded right and
possession was directly affected thereby. The entire proceeding
was conducted behind her back in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice.
The mutation appeal preferred by the Opposite
Parties was founded on Mutation Case No.1843/1998, which
according to her, relates to a different land situated in a
different mouza and has no nexus with the land purchased by
her. It is thus alleged that the authorities, without proper
verification of records and without affording opportunity of
hearing have illegally cancelled her ROR and initiated steps for
eviction.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Opposite
Party Nos. 1 to 3 contending that land in question forms part of
Government land recorded in the name of the Railway under
Khata No.112 as per the settlement records and that the
petitioner has no right, title or interest over the same. It is their
specific case that the creation of Khata No.103/8 in favour of
one Arun Shankar Ghosh was the result of a fraudulent
mutation proceeding, namely Mutation Case No.1843/1998,
whereby a portion of Railway land was illegally carved out and
recorded in a separate khata. The petitioner, being a
subsequent purchaser, cannot claim any better title than her
vendor.
It is stated that upon detection of such irregularity
during verification of records, the Railway authorities preferred
Mutation Appeal No.38/2025 before the Sub-Collector,
Dhenkanal, who, upon consideration of the materials on record,
set aside the said mutation and directed restoration of the land
to the original Khata No.112. Consequent thereto, the
Tahasildar, Dhenkanal initiated RMC Case No.695/2025 and
corrected the ROR in terms of the appellate order.
It is also stated that the petitioner was not a
necessary party to the mutation appeal proceedings as the very
foundation of her title stands vitiated and the writ petition is
not maintainable inasmuch as it involves disputed questions of
fact relating to title and possession.
5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by Opposite
Parties Nos.6 and 7. Opposite party Nos.6 and 7, while
supporting the stand taken by the Railway authorities have
stated that the mutation in favour of Arun Shankar Ghosh was
erroneous and without jurisdiction, and accordingly the same
has been rightly set aside by the appellate authority.
6. Heard Mr. R.R Sahoo, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. P.K Parhi, learned DSGI with Mr. S. Pattanaik,
learned CGC for the Railways and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State.
7. Mr. R.R Sahoo would argue that the petitioner is a
bonafide purchaser having acquired the land in the year 2001
and has been in continuous possession thereof ever since,
pursuant to mutation in her favour and issuance of ROR. He
submits that the proceedings in 19.11.2025 and 15.12.2025
were conducted behind the back of the petitioner without
impleading her as a party and without issuing any notice. Such
action, according to him, is in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice and on that ground alone, the impugned orders
are liable to be set aside.
He further argues that the very foundation of the
mutation appeal is erroneous inasmuch as the authorities have
relied upon Mutation Case No.1843/1998, which, in fact,
relates to a different land in a different mouza and pertains to
entirely different persons having no nexus with the land in
question. He argues that without proper verification of the
records and by relying upon incorrect and irrelevant materials,
the authorities have proceeded to cancel the petitioner's ROR,
which renders the entire proceeding vitiated.
He also submits that the mutation appeal was
entertained after inordinate delay running into decades without
assigning any reason for condonation of such delay and further
the proceeding has been initiated against a person who was
already dead without impleading his legal heirs, thereby
rendering the order nullity in the eye of law. He further submits
that the petitioner not being a party to the earlier proceedings
had no opportunity to avail any alternative remedy
8. Per contra, Mr. P.K Parhi would argue that the land
in question forms part of Government land recorded in the
name of the Railway under Khata No.112 as per the settlement
records and the petitioner has no manner of right, title or
interest over the same.
He submits that the creation of Khata No.103/8 in
favour of Arun Shankar Ghosh was the result of a fraudulent
mutation proceeding, namely Mutation Case No.1843/1998,
whereby a portion of Railway land was illegally carved out and
recorded in a separate khata. According to him, once the very
foundation of title is found to be vitiated by fraud, all
subsequent transactions, including the purchase made by the
petitioner, automatically stand nullified. He further submits
that upon detection of such irregularity during verification of
records, the Railway authorities preferred Mutation Appeal
No.38/2025, and the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal, upon due
consideration, rightly set aside the mutation and directed
restoration of the land to the original Khata No.112.
Consequent thereto, the Tahasildar, Dhenkanal has rightly
corrected the ROR in RMC Case No.695/2025.
He also argues that the petitioner was not a
necessary party to the mutation appeal proceedings, inasmuch
as her claim is derived from a void and fraudulent transaction
and therefore no separate notice was required to be issued to
her. Proceeding was duly conducted by resorting to substituted
service through publication, which satisfies the requirement of
law.
Lastly, he submits that the writ petition is not
maintainable as the same involves disputed questions of fact
relating to title and possession.
9. Mr. S.N Patnaik supports the argument made by
the Mr. Parhi and submits that the mutation in favour of Arun
Shankar Ghosh having been found to be erroneous and without
jurisdiction, the appellate authority has rightly exercised its
power in setting aside the same. He submits that the Tahasildar
has only carried out the consequential correction of the ROR in
obedience to the appellate order.
10. From the facts of the case and the rival
contentions, it is evident that order dated 19.11.2025 passed by
the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal in Mutation Appeal No.38 of
2025, order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Tahasildar,
Dhenkanal in RMC No.695 of 2025 and order dated 07.01.2026
passed by the Sub-Collector in RMAC No.7 of 2026 are under
challenge. Order dated 15.12.2025, passed by the Tahasildar in
RMC No.695 of 2025 is a consequential order passed on the
basis of order dated 19.11.2025 passed in Mutation Appeal
No.38 of 2025.
11. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not
impleaded as parties in the said RMC and appeal case and
hence, were deprived of opportunity to put forth their
contentions. It further appears that Mutation Case No.1843 of
1988 does not belong to late Arun Shankar Ghosh, the principal
vendor. In order dated 07.01.2026, it is mentioned that the
mutation case record is not traceable. It has been forcefully
argued that reference to Mutation Case No.1843 of 1998 in the
'Bhulekh' portal is a typographical error.
12. Thus, this Court finds that seriously disputed
questions of fact are involved, which obviously cannot be
adjudicated by the writ Court. However, the parties claim title
over the lands in question on the basis of sale deeds duly
executed by their vendors. The lands were also recorded in their
favour in appropriate mutation proceedings. Therefore, any
subsequent change in the records could not have been done
without hearing them. That apart, whether Mutation Case
No.1843 of 1988 actually relates to the principal vendor Arun
Shankar Ghosh or not has to be ascertained with certainty.
There also seems to be some doubt as to against which order
the Railways had preferred Mutation Appeal No.38 of 2025. The
question of delay also appears to have escaped notice.
13. For all the above reasons therefore, this Court is of
the considered view that the application filed by the petitioners
seeking leave to appeal should not have been rejected merely by
relying upon the earlier order passed in appeal and the
consequential order passed by the Tahasildar. The matter
therefore, needs to be heard afresh by the Sub-Collector. This
Court is conscious of the fact that the lands in question are
sought to be acquired by the Railways for laying new railway
tracks. Said work being done for the general public welfare
should not be halted at the instance of a few. It has been
argued that the amount sanctioned for the development work in
favour of the Railways shall have to be surrendered in the
absence of actual work being undertaken at the close of the
financial year. While, this is a procedural aspect that may cause
disruption in the development work, yet fact remains that
valuable rights of some persons are involved that needs
consideration. Both these aspects are to be balanced.
14. It is true that in case of acquisition of lands for
development work, these persons would be compensated in
monetary terms but a clear picture as regards right and
ownership over the land in question needs to emerge at first.
This can happen only by way of adjudication of the factual and
legal issues involved.
15. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ
applications are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal to
conduct fresh hearing after granting opportunity to all
concerned and to pass a reasoned order determining the rights
of the parties. The whole exercise should be completed within
four weeks from today. Till such time, status quo with regard to
the lands in question as on date shall be maintained by both
parties.
..............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 7 April,
th 2026/
Designation: Puspanjali Ghadai, Junior Stenographer
Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 08-Apr-2026 11:12:00
