IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12051 of 2026 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 23.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, no notice is issued to private opposite party no.5 bring it open to him to seek variance of this order, if he so desires. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bargarh in Mutation Appeal Case No.09 of 2025. The said appeal was preferred by the present opposite party no.5 against the order passed by the Tahasildar, Bhatli in Mutation Case and a petition seeking condonation of delay was also filed. Though the appellate authority referred to the said petition, yet no specific order was passed in condoning the delay and the matter was heard directly on merit. 4. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application for condonation of delay has been referred to along with the objection filed by the petitioner (Respondent in the appeal) to it. However, the order does not reveal whether the delay was condoned or not. Since an application seeking condonation of delay had been filed, Krushna Chandra Bhoi @ Naik and Ors. .… Petitioner Represented by Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha &Others .… Opp. Parties Represented by Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel Order No. 02. . the same should have been considered at the first instance before taking up hearing of the appeal on merits. 5. Considering the above, this Court is inclined to interfere. The writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Sub-Collector, Bargarh to hear the appeal afresh. The application for condonation of delay shall be heard at the first instance before proceeding further. The Sub-Collector shall hear all parties before passing any order. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Pravakar