Ajit Kumar Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Petitioner Represented by Ms. A.K.Dei, Advocate .… Opp. Parties Represented by Ms. J.Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 29.07.2026 Order No. 01. .

#1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “The petitioner humbly, therefore prays that your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties, allow the same by issuing a writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus the order passed by Opposite Party No.4 in Suo moto Mutation Case No. 8943 of 2025 for changing the land from ‘ Sthitiban’ to ‘Patadar’ vide Annexure-7 and notification No. 23868 dated 02.07.2025 issued by the Govt. of Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide Annexure-6 be set aside and directed to the opposite party No.4 correcting the ROR vide Khata No. 257/102, Plot No. 755/932/994 Mouza Shyamasundarpur from ‘Pattadar’ to ‘Sthitiban’ and issue Sthitiban Patta in favour of the petitioner. And appropriate direction/directions as deem fit and proper And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” order/orders,

#3. By a suo motu mutation case registered by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the land in question recorded in the name of the petitioners 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. Ms. A.K.Dei, 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. Mohanty 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 coronary 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 administrative orders. is equally applicable (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 the same would consequential order made pursuant 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 Punjab 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 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. 8943 of 2025 shall not be acted upon. Judge (Sashikanta Mishra) Deepak