Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Chandra Prakash Rath - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025
Decided On : 14-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty Adv.

Accrued rights cannot be retroactively altered by government amendments; initial illegal orders invalidate subsequent actions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 & 227 - Writ petition for quashing of impugned order in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 - The court ruled that accrued rights cannot be taken away by retrospective amendments and that notifications by the government must have a prospective effect. (Paras 5 and 7)

(B) Judicial principles - The legality of an order is pivotal; if the initial order is illegal, subsequent orders based on it are non-est. (Paras 6 and 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Addl. Tahasildar's order changing the land's status from sthitiban to pattadar based on a government notification.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order and the corrected R.o.R. were deemed unsustainable; the petitioner’s rights were upheld.

Issues: The key issues were whether the government’s notification could alter accrued rights retroactively and the legitimacy of the Addl. Tahasildar's decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that rights already acquired cannot be revoked by changes made retrospectively, emphasizing that illegal initial orders nullify subsequent actions.

Result: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order and the corrected R.o.R. are quashed.

Table of Content
1. writ petition challenges mutation order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. status of land prior to impugned order. (Para 4)
3. government notifications have prospective effects. (Para 5 , 6)
4. illegality of initial order affects subsequent actions. (Para 7)
5. writ petition allowed; quashing of orders. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

A.C.BEHERA, J.

This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13) passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) and to direct the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) to keep the R.o.R. of the case land vide Khata No.474/4656 Plot No.299/1823/2663 and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974 in Mouza Patia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha, as it was prior to the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13).

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the case land i.e. Plot No.299/1823/2663 Ac.0.06 decimals and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974 Ac0.02 decimals in total Ac0.08 decimals under Khata No.474/4656 was under Sthitiban status in the name of the petitioner and kisam of the said two plots was Baje Fasal Dui.

As per the judgment dated 16.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.11999 of 2025, this Court had directed the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) for final disposal of the conversion proceeding under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 of the petitioner within two months from the date of filing of the certified copy of the judgment of the said writ petition according to the observations made therein on the basis of the observations made in the order of the earlier writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.31109 of 2024 and to report about the final disposal of the said conversion proceeding to the Court. But, when the petitioner submitted the certified copy of the judgment dated 16.05.2025 of W.P.(C) No.11999 of 2025 for disposal of his conversion proceeding vide OLR Case No.2001 of 2022 under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960 in respect of the case land for conversion of the same from Baje Fasal Dui to Homestead, the O.P. No.5 (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) suo moto initiated a mutation case vide Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 and as per Order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13), the O.P. No.5 (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) changed the Sthitiban Satwa status of the petitioner from Khata No.474/4656 containing the Plot No.299/1823/2663 and Plot No.299/1823/2664/4974 to Pattadar status on the basis of the Notification issued by the Government in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-CHS-PGOT- 0303-2020-23868/R&DM, dated 02.07.2025 and prepared new R.o.R. vide Annexure-14 correcting the stithiban status of the petitioner from the same to Pattardar.

For which, the petitioner has challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-13) passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 as well as to the corrected R.o.R. vide Annexure-14 and to keep the record and status of the case land under Khata No.474/4656 as it was under sthitiban status in the name of the petitioner prior to the impugned order dated 22.08.2025.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

4. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, prior to 22.08.2025 i.e. prior to the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.8605 of 2025 by the O.P. No.5 (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar), the status in the R.o.R. of the case land vide Khata No.474/4656 in the name of the petitioner was under sthitiban status, to which, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) has changed from sthitiban status to pattadar status on the basis of the Notification issued by the Government in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-23868/R&DM,dated 02.07.2025.

5. The law concerning the effect of