[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bidhu Bhusan Satpathi vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.3584 of 2026
Bidhu Bhusan Satpathi .... Petitioner
Represented by
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Represented by
Mr. U.R. Padhi,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
23.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following
prayer:-
"It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue
notice to the Opposite Parties, call for the relevant records
and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the impugned
order dated 23.07.2025 under Annexure-8 by the
Tahasildar, Jatni be quashed and consequently the
Tahasildar Jatni be directed to correct the ROR of Khata
No.392 of 2025 under sthitiban status in favout of the
petitioner within a time bound period.
And further be pleased to pass such further order/orders
as this Hon'ble Court deems just, 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."
3. 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.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned senior 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."
5. Learned State counsel fairly submits that the petitioner's case is
covered by the ratio decided in the cited case.
6. 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 dated 23.07.2025 shall not be acted upon.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Puspanjali
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 24-Feb-2026 17:36:43
