IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5748 of 2026 Mamita Das …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 24.04.2026 01. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking the following relief: “to issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dtd. 31.12.2025 passed by the opp. party no.2 in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.14771 of 2025 under Annexure-4 and the corrected Bhulekh ROR issued by the opp. party no.2 under Annexure- 5 shall not be quashed.” 3. Pursuance to the Notification dated 02.07.2025 under Annexure-3 issued by the opposite party No.1, a Suo Moto Mutation Case No.14771 of 2025 was initiated by the opposite party no.2 and the land in question was recorded in the name of the petitioner under sthitiban status has been converted to Patadar status. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved and approached this Court with the aforementioned prayer. 4. Mr. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initiation of the proceeding as well as the order passed therein is entirely contrary to the law log settled that operation of a Government Circular/Notification shall always be prospective. Mr. Pattanaik refers to a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Rath vs. 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 vs. 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 vs. 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. (Para9) (iii) In a case between Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by LRs vs. 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 Punjab vs. 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 above cited cases. 6. Since the law has been settled, the writ application is disposed of directing the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the matter strictly in the light of the judgment of this Court referred above and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from today. Till such time, the order dated 31.12.2025 shall not be acted upon. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Subhasis Designation: Personal Assistant Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.