Orissa High Court
Santanu Samantaray vs State Of Odisha on 30 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7806 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Santanu Samantaray .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha, represented through .... Opposite Parties
its Commissioner-cum-Secretary
Revenue and Disaster Management
Department, Government of Odisha,
Bhubaneswar and others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. A. Nayak,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak
Learned Additional Standing
Counsel for O.P. No.1 to 4
Mr. N. Panda, Advocate for O.P.
No.5
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 18.06.2025 / date of judgment : 30.06.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing(setting aside) the order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure-6) passed in Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) and also to quash the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022(Annexure-7) by the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2).
2. The case land vide Khata No.59, Plot No.384 in Mouza-Natery under Banki Tahasil in the district of Cuttack was ordered for mutation to the name of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) as per final order dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 on the basis of the Sale Deed No.10412101774 dated 15.11.2021 in his favour. After such order for mutation passed on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 by the Tasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4), new RoR of the case land vide Khata No.263/339(Annexure-4) was prepared by the Opposite Party No.4(Tahasildar, Banki) in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the said final order passed in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3).
3. That, subsequent thereto, the said Opposite Party No.4 (Tahasildar, Banki) initiated a Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 suo motu for recalling the earlier mutation order (Annexure-3) passed by him(Opposite Party No.4) in respect of the case land in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 in favour of the petitioner and also passed final order in that suo motu Page 2 of 12 Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 on dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) for deletion of the name of the petitioner from the RoR No.263/339,(which was prepared after final order of mutation passed by the Opposite Party No.4 in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021) and to prepare the RoR of the case land in the name of the State and indirectly recalled the final order passed in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 by him(Opposite Party No.4) without giving any notice to the petitioner for hearing of that suo motu Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 and also without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in that suo motu Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022.
On the basis of such order dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) passed by the Tahasildar Banki(Opposite Party No.4) in suo motu Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022, the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) passed an order on dated 30.11.2022(Annexure-7) in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 for removal of the name of the petitioner from the RoR of the case land and to record the same under Government Khata No.279 in the name of the Government/State and directed Sub-Register, Banki not to entertain any transaction in respect of the case land.
4. When, the petitioner came to know about the above impugned order dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) passed in suo motu Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) and the Page 3 of 12 impugned order dated 30.11.2022(Annexure-7) passed in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022(Annexure-7) by the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2), he(petitioner) challenged the same by filing this writ petition against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing Annexures-6 and 7 passed by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) and Collector, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2) on the grounds that, after passing the order for mutation of the case land in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) by the Opposite Party No.4 in favour of the petitioner, the said Opposite Party No.4 (Tahasildar, Banki) had no authority or jurisdiction under law to initiate Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 suo motu for recalling the earlier mutation order passed by him (Opposite Party No.4) on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 and he(Opposite Party No.4) should not have recalled the final order passed on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without complying the principles of natural justice. Likewise, the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) also should not have passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure-
7) in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and as such, the impugned the orders vide Annexures-6 and 7 passed by the Opposite Party Nos.4 and 2 are without Page 4 of 12 jurisdiction, for which, the said Annexures-6 and 7 are liable to be quashed.
5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the Opposite Parties including the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
6. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, "Final order dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) was passed by the Opposite Party No.4(Tahasildar, Banki) in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 for recording the case land in the name of the petitioner.
On the basis of such final order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure-3) passed by the Opposite Party No.4 in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021, RoR vide Khata No.263/339 in respect of the case land was prepared in the name of the petitioner.
Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 was initiated by the same Opposite Party No.4 suo motu much after preparation of the new RoR vide Khata No.263/339 of the case land in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the order for mutation passed in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 for recalling the said final order passed on dated 22.12.2021 in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021.
As per order dated 25.11.2022 passed in suo motu Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022, the Opposite Party No.4(Tahasildar, Banki) directed for removal/deletion of name of the petitioner from the newly prepared RoR of the case land(which was prepared on the basis of his order as per Annexure-3) and to prepare the RoR of the case land in the name Page 5 of 12 of the State cancelling/recalling the final order dated 22.12.2021 passed in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 indirectly.
The impugned order dated 30.11.2022(Annexure-7) was passed by the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 in respect of the case land for preparation of the RoR of the same in the name of the State/Government on the basis of the order dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) passed in suo motu Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4)."
7. It appears from the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure-
6) passed by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) in suo motu Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 that, the said order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure-6) has been passed by him(Opposite Party No.4) for removal/deletion of the name of the petitioner from the RoR of the case land and to prepare the RoR for the same in the name of the State/Government recalling the final order dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-
3) passed by him(Opposite Party No.4) in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 indirectly without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order vide Annexure-6 has been passed by the Opposite Party No.4 against the petitioner affecting his right already created in his favour as per order on dated 22.12.2021(Annexure-3) passed in Mutation Case No.5009 of 2021 without complying the principles of natural justice.
Page 6 of 12
Likewise, it also appears from the impugned order dated 30.11.2022(Annexure-7) passed in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 by the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) that, the said Annexure-7 has been passed by the Opposite Party No.2 on the basis of the impugned order vide Annexure-6 of the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. As such, both the orders vide Annexures-6 and 7 have been passed by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 4 respectively against the petitioner behind his back without complying the principles of natural justice.
8. The law concerning the object of compliance of the principles of natural justice and the fate / result of the judgments/orders passed without complying the principles of natural justice has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions :-
(i) In a case between Justice P.D. Dinakaran vrs. Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and others : reported in 2011(II) OLR(S.C.)-445 (Para Nos.22 and 25)--Natural justice is a branch of public law- Rules of natural justice are basic values-
Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities- Natural justice is a part of law which relates to administration of justice- Object of rules of natural justice is to ensure fundamental liberties and rights of subjects- Doctrine of Page 7 of 12 natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. The judge should be impartial and neutral and must be free from bias.
(ii) In a case between Niranjan Tripathy vrs. Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another : reported in 2015(II) OLR-898--Even if there is no provision for compliance of principles of natural justice, it implies that, before taking any action, principles of natural justice has to be complied with by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, otherwise, the action is open to challenge and is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) In a case between Satyajit Sahoo vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 2016(I)OLR-325 (Para-12)--If a decision has been taken which affects a party, it would amount to clear violation of principles of natural justice and the order passed in violation of salutary provision of natural justice would be a nullity.
(iv) In a case between Johra and others vrs. State of Haryana and others : reported in 2019(1) CCC(S.C.)-12 and 2019(1) CLR(S.C.)-380--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.
(v) In a case between Subash Chandra Sahu vrs. Union of India and others : reported in 2019(I) OLR-728(Para-14)-- The principles of natural justice are those- rules, which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individuals against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by the judicial, quashi-judicial and Page 8 of 12 administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
(vi) In a case between Uma Nath Pandey and others vrs. State of U.P. and another : reported in AIR 2009 S.C.- 2375(Para-19)--The purpose of the following principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.
(vii) In a case between High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vrs. State of U.P. and others : reported in 2025(1) Civil Law Judgment(S.C.)-40(Para-16)--Any order passed without complying the principles of natural justice is to be treated as illegal.
(viii) In a case between Shivaji vrs. Parwatibai and others :
reported in 2025(2) Civil Law Judgment(S.C.)-528--When a case is disposed of against any party without giving him/her an opportunity of hearing, such disposal deserves to be deprecated in view of 2023 SCC online S.C.-1210 Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vrs. Sau.Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and others, for which, matter is required to be remitted back for its decision afresh.
(ix) In a case between Census Commissioner and others vrs. R. Krishnamurthy : reported in 2015(1) Civil Law Times (S.C.)-30--Person likely to suffer from order of Court and not impleaded as a party has right a to ignore said order as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.(Paras-19 and 20).
(x) In a case between Gobinda Prasad Pattanaik and another vrs. Collector, Cuttack and others : reported in Page 9 of 12 112(2011) CLT-276--When Revenue Misc. Case was heard by the Collector without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, therefore, the said order passed by the Collector is set aside and directed the Collector to issue notice to the petitioners, hear the parties and pass orders afresh as would be deemed fit and proper in accordance with law.
(xi) In a case between Biswanath Sethi vrs. State of Odisha and others : reported in 2021(1) OLR-555--Even when an administrative order is passed affecting the rights of a citizen without hearing such citizen, the said order shall be treated as an order without compliance of the principles of natural justice, which is the gross violation of law.
9. When, the impugned orders dated 25.11.2022(Annexure-6) and 30.11.2022(Annexure-7) respectively have been passed in suo motu Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 and Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) and Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) without complying the principles of natural justice, then, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the impugned orders vide Annexures-6 and 7 cannot be sustainable under law. For which, the same are liable to be quashed(set aside) and the matter/case i.e. Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 is required to be heard and disposed of afresh as per law after complying the principles of natural justice. Page 10 of 12
10. For which, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed.
11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest.
12. The impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) in Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 vide Annexure-6 and the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.63 of 2022 vide Annexure-7 by the Collector, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) are quashed(set aside).
13. The matter vide Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 is remitted back(remanded back) to the Tahasildar, Banki(Opposite Party No.4) to decide the same afresh as per law after issuing notice to the petitioner and others, if any and after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and others, if any, complying the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible and the petitioner along with other parties, if any, are at liberty to agitate their all grievances/grounds permissible under law on their behalf in respect of their claims before the Tahasildar, Banki in Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 and the Opposite Party No.4 is to take its best endeavour to dispose of that Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 finally as expeditiously as possible answering/meeting all the Page 11 of 12 points/questions raised by the parties including the petitioner before him(Opposite Party No.4).
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.
15. Registry is to communicate this judgment immediately to the Tahasildar, Banki (Opposite Party No.4) for the proceeding with the Mutation Case No.1020 of 2022 as per law in compliance with the directions made above in this judgment.
( A.C. Behera ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 30th of June, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2025 17:43:32 Page 12 of 12