Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.15461 of 2023 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Padma Manjari Devi .......…… Petitioners & Others -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others ……….. Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : Mr. B.Bhuyan,Sr.Advocate. Ms.S.Sahoo,Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G.Mohanty, S.C. (for O.P. Nos.1 to 3) Mr.K.Choudhury,Advocate Mr.L.K.Maharana,Advocate Mr.A.N.Bhattacharya,Advocate (for the O.P. No.4) WP(C) No.15462 of 2023 Padma Manjari Devi .......…… Petitioners & Others -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Others ……….. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Counsel appeared for the parties: WP(C) Nos.15461 and 15462 of 2023 Page 1 of 7 For the Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.Bhuyan,Sr.Advocate. Ms.S.Sahoo,Advocate For the Opposite Parties : P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 02.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 17.04.2025 ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— J UDGMENT 1. Since both these writ petitions have arisen out of one order vide Order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) and since,
Decision
the same petitioners have filed both the writ petitions, then, both the writ petitions have been taken up together analogously for their final disposal through this common Judgment. 2. The factual backgrounds of both the writ petitions, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same are that, on the basis of the final decree passed in the suit vide C.S. No.366 of 2022, two applications for mutation of the case land vide Mutation case Nos.529 of 2023 and 530 of 2023 were filed by the WP(C) Nos.15461 and 15462 of 2023 Page 2 of 7 petitioners before the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) and the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) allowed the above two mutation cases of the petitioners on dated 14.03.2023 and on the basis of the said order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the O.P. No.3, two new Khatas were prepared vide Khata No.154/683 in Mouja Swarupvilla and Khata No.67/49 in Mouja Tadkisole in the name of the petitioners. Subsequent thereto, on the basis of an order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 filed by the O.P. No.4 (Prativa Manjari Devi), the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) cancelled the said newly created R.o.Rs. vide Khata Nos.154/683 and 67/49 (those were prepared in the name of the petitioners after mutation) without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. For which, after knowing about such order of cancellation of their R.o.Rs. vide Khata Nos. 154/683 and 67/49 as per order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3), they (petitioners) challenged the same by filing these two writ petitions against the O.Ps praying for quashing the said order dated 11.04.2023 WP(C) Nos.15461 and 15462 of 2023 Page 3 of 7 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3). 3. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. 4. On the basis of the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of these writ petitions is that, “whether the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) and cancellation/correction of the R.o.Rs vide Khata Nos.154/683 and 67/49 from the name of the petitioners to the name of O.P. No.4 is sustainable under law? 5. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, prior to cancellation of the R.o.Rs vide Khata Nos.154/683 and 67/49, the said R.o.Rs were in the name of the petitioners and the said R.o.Rs were prepared on the basis of the final order dated 14.03.2023 passed in Mutation case Nos.529 of 2023 and 530 of 2023 as per the final decree passed in C.S. No.366 of 2023 in favour of the petitioners, but, the said R.o.Rs vide Khata Nos. 154/683 and 67/49 (those were prepared in the name of the WP(C) Nos.15461 and 15462 of 2023 Page 4 of 7 petitioners) have been cancelled/corrected from the name of the petitioners to the name of the O.P. No.4 without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, which is evident from the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3). 6. It is the settled propositions of law that, if in any case or in any matter, an order is passed to the detriment of the interest of any party, the said party must be given a reasonable opportunity to show-cause before passing of that order, for no other reason, but, only in order to comply the principles of natural justice. 7. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Banambar Das Vrs. Pitambar Das & Others reported in 2010 (1) OLR 700 that, whenever an order is passed to the detriment of a party, that party must be given a reasonable opportunity to show-cause and being heard. (ii) In a case between Satyajit Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 2016 (1) OLR 325 that, if a decision is rendered, which affects a party, it would amount WP(C) Nos.15461 and 15462 of 2023 Page 5 of 7 to clear violation of the principles of natural justice and an order passed in violation of salutary provision of natural justice would be a nullity. (iii) In a case between Johra & Others Vrs. State of Haryana & Others reported in 2019 (1) CCC (S.C.) 12 that, no order can be passed by any Court in any judicial proceedings against any party to such proceedings without hearing and giving such party an opportunity of hearing. 8. Here in this matter at hand, when, the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) has been passed by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 cancelling the R.o.R vide Khata Nos.154/683 and 67/49 from the name of the petitioners to the name of the O.P. No.4 affecting the interest of the petitioners without giving any opportunity to the petitioners for filing show-cause and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon’ble courts and Apex Court, it is held that, the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) is a nullity, as the same has been passed in contravention with the principles of natural justice. WP(C) Nos.15461 and 15462 of 2023 Page 6 of 7 For which, the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) cannot be sustainable under law. So, the impugned order (Annexure 7) is liable to be quashed (set aside). 9. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The same must succeed. 10. In result, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. 11. The impugned order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure 7) passed in Misc. Case No.30 of 2023 passed by the Tahasildar, Baripada (O.P. No.3) is quashed (set aside). 12. Accordingly, both the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 17.04.2025// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2025 16:57:07 WP(C) Nos.15461 and 15462 of 2023 Page 7 of 7