p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9399 of 2026 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 22.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B.R. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.07.2025 passed in a suo-motu proceeding registered as Misc. Case No.45 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Buguda whereby, the land recorded as ‘Rayati’ has been reflected. The order appears to have been passed purportedly on the basis of instruction of the Government in Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 19.06.2025 and for rectification of Satwa in ROR. 4. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statutory right accrued in favour of his client cannot be taken away by an executive instruction. Secondly, the executive instruction cannot have any retrospective applicability. He cites the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jyoti Ranjan Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.35474 of 2025) in support of his argument. Narayan Samantara .… Petitioner Mr. B.R. Behera, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Another .… Opp. Parties Mr. S.N. Patnaik, AGA Order No. 02. . p. 2 5. Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment in Jyoti Ranjan Mohanty(Supra). 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tahasildar has referred to the circular/instruction of the Government issued on 19.06.2025 to change the Satwa of the recorded land from ‘Rayati’ Status to ‘Pattadar’ Status. In the case of Jyoti Ranjan Mohanty(Supra), a Coordinate Bench, after analyzing the law settled by several judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court held that the operation of all notifications and the resolutions of the Government are prospective in nature having no retrospective effect. Since the law has already been settled by this Court, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. 7. Resultantly, the writ application is allowed, the impugned order is quashed. The status of the land be restored as the ROR originally published in favour of the petitioner without any further delay and in any case, not later than six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Ranjeeta