p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12657 of 2026 CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER 29.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the 0pp. Parties as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus/ certiorari shall not be issued (i) quashing the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the 0pp. Party No. 5 / Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar under ANNEXURE-6 and the ROR under ANNEXURE-7 and direct the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to restore the ROR in respect of the case land by recording the same as " Stitiban" status/ swatwa. (ii) If the 0pp. Parties show cause or show insufficient cause to make the said Rule as absolute and (iii) Pass such other order / order and issue writ / writs which would afford complete relief to the Petitioner in the interest of justice; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray”. Rasmita Naik .… Petitioner Represented by Mr. H. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others .… Opp. Parties Represented by Mr.S.S. Routray, ASC Order No. 01. . Page 2 of 3 3. By a suo motu mutation case registered by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the land in question recorded in the name of 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. Mohanty, 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. Mohanty 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) p. 3 (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. (iv)In a case between State of Pubjab 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 submits that though the original ROR was published showing the land in Stitiban status yet as per order passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.6/06, the status was changed to Dakhal Swatwa Sunya. The said ROR was never changed. 6. Whether the stitiban right of the petitioner was validly taken away, this is a matter to be considered by the appropriate authorities. 7. Since the law has been settled in this regard in the judgment referred above, the writ application is disposed of directing the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the matter strictly in light of the judgment of this Court referred above as well as taking note of the facts referred above relating to the nature of holding of the petitioner as Stitiban originally and Dakhal Satwa Sunya subsequently and appropriate order shall be passed within four weeks from today. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Pravakar