Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Rajani Kanta Maharana – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the writ petition and background. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. maintainability of the writ and relevant case law. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. merit found in the petitioner's writ. (Para 6) |
| 4. final orders on the writ petition. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
1.This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the impugned order dated 20.09.2025 passed in Mutation Appeal Case No.33 of 2025 by the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2).
3. The case of the petitioners is that, the Sub-Collector, Nayagarh (Opp. Party No.2) passed the impugned order on dated 20.09.2025 in Mutation Appeal Case No.33 of 2025 filed by the Tahasildar, Ranpur and set aside the impugned order passed in Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 on dated 25.02.2025 in Mutation Case No.817/2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar-Cum- Mutation-Officer, Ranpur assigning the reasons that, order dated 25.02.2025 in Mutation Case No.817 of 2025 was passed by the Addl. Tahasildar-Cum-Mutation-Officer, Ranpur without following the proper procedures of Mutation Manual.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the State objected to the maintainability of this writ pe
Writ petitions can be maintained despite alternate remedies if government officials act contrary to law, emphasizing the necessity of adherence to procedural standards in administrative decisions.
Judicial orders must include reasoning; a non-speaking order violates principles of natural justice and is not sustainable under law.
Petitioner must seek revision against a Sub-Collector's order instead of filing a writ petition; limitation provisions apply favorably due to the petitioner’s bona fide mistake.
Orders in mutation cases must be finalized by the Tahasildar, and contradictory orders lacking proper procedure are deemed unlawful.
Violation of natural justice principles renders administrative orders illegal, necessitating an opportunity for hearing in administrative proceedings.
A Tahasildar is not required to consult the Collector for correcting the R.o.R as per law, and higher authorities may not set aside such orders without valid reasons.
The rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies has been held to be a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and existence of an alternate remedy would not divest the High Court of its powers under ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
