p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8796 of 2026 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 06.04.2026 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 this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petitioner issue notice to the Opposite Parties and after hearing the counsels for the parties be pleased to quash the letter date 16.01.2026 under Annexure-4 to secure ends of justice; And or pass any other order/orders direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for which kind act the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Balunki Das filed C.S. No.1 of 2016 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khallikote in respect of the disputed land. The suit was decreed. Dhanu Patra .… Petitioner Represented by Mr. B.C. Panda, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr. S.S. Routray, Additional Standing Counsel Order No. 01. . p. 2 4. The petitioner has challenged the decree before the appellate Court, that is, the learned Additional District Judge, Khallikote in RFA No.2 of 2024. By order dated 26.04.2024, the appellate Court has stayed operation of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. However, in an apparent misrepresentation of facts, the plaintiff appeared before the Tahasildar, Khallikote in Mutation Case No.2586 of 2024 instituted for recording the land in his favour on the basis of the Civil Court decree. Interestingly, order dated 18.12.2024 passed in the aforesaid case reveals that the plaintiff submitted an affidavit declaring that no appeal is pending in any higher Court against this decree. 5. The petitioner having come to learn of such misrepresentation submitted an application for recall of the order. This is how the impugned communication dated 16.01.2026 came to be passed. Reading of the same reveals that the grounds raised by the petitioner seeking recall have not been taken into consideration at all. If true, it amounts to submission of false affidavit and deliberate misrepresentation of facts, which needless to mention is an act of fraud. The Tahasildar ought to have called upon the deponent of the affidavit and issue notice to the other party, that is, the present petitioner before accepting the affidavit. In any case, an application for recall having been filed on the above mentioned grounds, it was incumbent upon the Tahasildar to have enquired into the matter by calling upon both parties to appear and justify their respective stands. 6. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court holds that the impugned communication dated 16.01.2026 cannot be sustained and is therefore, quashed. The writ application is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Tahasildar, Khallikote to rehear the p. 3 application filed by the present petitioner seeking recall of the final order passed in the mutation case by granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The matter shall be disposed of within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Puspanjali Designation: Junior Stenographer Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.