IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 2507 of 2015 Golbadan Podh ..... Petitioner Mr. B. Panigrahi, Adv. -Versus- Additional commissioner, Consolidation and Settlement, Sambalpur & Others ..... Opp. Parties Mr. S.N. Patnaik, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 22.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and after hearing the parties, issue appropriate writs and directions to quash the impugned orders dtd. 19.07.2014 and 20.01.2015 under Annexure-4 & 6 respectively and direct the opposite party no.1 to follow the principle of natural justice before passing any order in Consolidation Revision No. 1346 of 2014 and further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 3. The brief facts, of the case, are that during the major settlement operations, the land was recorded in favour of Purusottam Bhoi, the vendor of the Petitioner in the year 1985. Said Purusottam Bhoi sold the land to the petitioner on 13.09.2013. On the basis of the same, the Petitioner applied for Order No. 8. mutation. In the meantime, Opposite Party No.3 filed consolidation revision case No.1346 of 2013 which came to be disposed of on 11.07.2014, which is challenged in the present Writ Petition. 4. It is submitted that Purusottam Bhoi died on 25.05.2014, that is, during pendency of the revision case. He was never substituted. As such, the impugned order was passed against a dead person and is thus unsustainable in law. The mutation case was subsequently allowed in favour of the petitioner and the land has since been recorded in his favour. 5. Without getting into the correctness or otherwise of the order, this Court observes that the impugned order passed against a dead person cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur to rehear the Revision Case No.1346 of 2013 after impleading the present petitioner as a party and by granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 7. The revision case shall be disposed of within two months from the date of appearance of the parties. To avoid further delay both parties are directed to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Sambalpur on 29th April, 2026 at 10.30 AM for fixing further date of hearing. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Ranjeeta