The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21663 of 2024 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Niranjan Rout and others …. Petitioners -versus- Sub-Collector, Balasore and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioners -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B. C. Sahu, Advocate. on behalf of Mr. B. Pradhan, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. Tej Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel. (for O.P. Nos.1 & 2) Mr. S. K. Mishra, Sr.Advocate. assisted by Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate. (for O.P Nos.3 to 6) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :04.08.2025 :: Date of Judgment :22.08.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners against the opposite parties praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order Page 1 of 7 dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-3) passed in Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (Opposite Party No.1). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the O.Ps in this writ petition had filed Mutation Case No.5157 of 2022 before the Tahasildar, Baliapal (O.P. No.2) praying for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land from the names of the petitioners in this writ petition to their names on the basis of the judgment and decree passed in T.A. No.13/19 of 2002-99 arising out of the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.929 of 1990-I in respect of the case land. The Tahasildar, Baliapal (O.P. No.2) allowed that Mutation Case No.5157 of 2022 of the O.Ps in this writ petition in their favour and passed order for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land from the name of the petitioners in this writ petition to their names. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners in this writ petition filed Mutation Misc. Case No.32 of 2022-23 as per rule 43 of the O.S. & S. Rules, 1962 praying for recalling the order passed in Mutation Case No.5157 of 2022 in favour of the O.Ps in this writ petition on the ground that, they have already preferred the 2nd appeal against the judgment and decree passed in T.A. No.13/19 of 2002-99 vide R.S.A. No.389 of 2003, which is pending in the High Court of Orissa for adjudication. Page 2 of 7 Therefore, order for mutation passed in Mutation Case No.5157 of 2022 is to be recalled. The Tahasildar, Baliapal (O.P. No.2) allowed that Mutation Misc. Case No.32 of 2022-23 on dated 17.01.2023 filed by the petitioners in this writ petition as per Rule 43 of the O.S. & S. Rules, 1962 and recalled the order for mutation of the case land passed in Mutation Case No.5157 of 2022 and reverted back the case land to the original khata in favour the petitioners in this writ petition. 3. On being aggrieved with the said order dated 17.01.2023 passed in Mutation Misc. Case No.32 of 2022-23 by the Tahasildar, Baliapal (O.P. No.2), the O.Ps in this writ petition challenged the same by filing Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 before the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.1) being the appellants against the petitioners in this writ petition arraying them as respondents. The Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.1) allowed that Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 filed by the O.Ps in this writ petition as per order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-3) and set aside the order dated 17.01.2023 passed in Mutation Misc. Case No.32 of 2022-23 in favour of the petitioners in this writ petition by the Tahasildar, Baliapal (O.P. No.2). For which, the petitioners in this writ petition have challenged that order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-3) passed in Misc. Appeal No.53 of Page 3 of 7 2023 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.1) by filing this writ petition against the O.Ps praying for quashing that order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-3) passed in Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 by the Sub- Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.1). 4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.3 to 6 and learned ASC for the State (O.P. Nos.1 & 2). 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, though it has been reflected in the impugned order vide Annexure-3 that, both the parties were present and heard, but in fact, the opportunity of hearing of Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 was not given by the O.P. No.1 to the petitioners in this writ petition. The impugned order vide Annexure-3 passed by O.P. No.1 does not reveal about the presence of the petitioners in this writ petition or their counsel and any hearing from their side. To which, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.3 to 6 objected contending that, when the impugned order vide Annexure-3 clearly shows that, both the parties including the petitioners in this writ petition were present at the time of hearing of Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023, then the question of hearing of the said Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 by the O.P. No.1 in their Page 4 of 7 absence does not arise. For which, this writ petition filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned order cannot be allowed. 6. When, there is no reflection in the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-3) about the hearing of the Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 from the learned counsel for the petitioners and when any contentions from the side of the petitioners either by the petitioners in person or through their counsel has not been indicated/reflected in the impugned order (Annexure-3) and when it is the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, they (petitioners) have not been provided any opportunity of being heard at the time of hearing of Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 for passing the impugned order (Annexure-3) and when the petitioners are eagerly interested for participating in the hearing of the Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 on merit after its remand to have their say in the said Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023, then at this juncture, if the matter vide Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 shall be remanded to the Court of O.P. No.1 for its disposal afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties in full compliance of the natural justice, then none of the parties shall be prejudiced, rather the same will be in furtherance of rendering substantial justice to the parties, for no other reason, but only to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the parties in respect of the case land. Page 5 of 7 7. Therefore, as per the discussions and observations made above, the ends of justice shall bestly be served, if the matter vide Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 shall be remanded to the O.P. No.1 for its disposal afresh as per law complying the principles of natural justice after setting aside the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-3) passed in Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023. 8. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part on contest. The impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-3) passed in Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.1) is quashed (set aside). The matter vide Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.1) to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof in full compliance of the principles of natural justice within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties in that Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023. The parties of this writ petition are directed to appear before the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P. No.1) on dated 01.09.2025 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the O.P. No.1 as to further proceedings of the said Misc. Appeal No.53 of 2023. Page 6 of 7 9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 22.08.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 15:26:17 Page 7 of 7