p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14881 of 2026 Gitanjali Kissan ..... Petitioner Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties Mrs. J. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 13.05.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that your lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue notice to the Opposite Parties and after hearing the parties, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.6973 of 2025 under Annexure-5 shall not be quashed and further why the Opposite Parties shall not be directed to make necessary correction under Annexure-5 shall not be quashed and further why the Opposite Parties shall not be directed to make necessary correction under Annexure-6 restoring the Satwa of the land in question as Stitiban in place of Pattadar within a stipulated time period and on their filing show causing and showing insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing impugned order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.6973 of 2025 under Annexure-5 and thereby to direct the Opposite Parties to make necessary correction to the ROR under Annexure-6 restoring Satwa as Stitiban in place of Pattadar for the ends of justice; And pleased to pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 3. By a suo motu mutation case registered by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the land in question recorded in the name of Order No. 01. Page 2 of 3 the petitioner 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. Mr. Mishra, 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. Mishra 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 is equally applicable to administrative orders. (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 consequential order made pursuant to the same would 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. Page 3 of 3 (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. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the ratio decided in Chandra Prakash Rath (supra), writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar by filing a representation within a period of ten days from today along with certified copy of this order and a copy of the judgment in Chandra Prakash Rath (supra). 7. If such representation is filed within the stipulated period, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar shall consider and dispose of the same in the light of the judgment made in Chandra Prakash Rath (supra) by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 8. It is also directed that till disposal of the representation, no action shall be taken pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.6973 of 2025. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Puspanjali Designation: Junior Stenographer Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 14-May-2026 19:27:22