[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dipti Jena vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10239 of 2026
Dipti Jena .... Petitioner
Represented by
Mr. K.K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Represented by
Mrs. J. Sahoo,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
15.04.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following
prayer:-
"In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner humbly
prays that this Hon''le Court may graciously be pleased to
admit this writ petition call for records and after hearing of
the parties, allow this writ petition by issuing appropriate
writ/writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus by
quashing the impugned ROR under Annexure-4 and direct
the O.P. No.4 to restore the ROR to its original position as
per ROR indicating the status of the land is stitiban;
And/or to pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just fit
equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case;
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in
duty bound ever pray."
4. By a suo motu mutation case registered by the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the land in question recorded in the name
of the petitioner under Stitiban status, was converted to Pattadar
status purportedly on the basis of the Revenue and Disaster
Management Department Circular dated 02.07.2025.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
initiation of proceeding as well as the order passed therein is
entirely contrary to the law long settled that operation of a
Government circular/notification shall always be prospective. Mr.
Mishra refers to a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Rath V. State of Odisha &
Others (W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025), wherein the Coordinate
Bench, after taking note of several Supreme Court judgments on the
point, held as follows:-
"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 coronaary 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 & Others (2000) 8 SCC 395 that,
Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later
point of time by order of 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 Pubjab Vrs. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar & Others 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."
6. Learned State counsel fairly submits that the petitioner's case is
covered by the ratio decided in the cited case.
7. Since the law has been settled, the writ application is disposed
of directing the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the
matter strictly in light of the judgment of this Court referred above
and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from today. Till such
time, the order passed in Misc. Case No.8570 of 2025 shall not be
acted upon.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Puspanjali
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 16-Apr-2026 11:22:21
