The court emphasized the necessity of impleading affected parties in proceedings impacting their rights, reaffirming principles of natural justice.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure-5) passed in Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (O.P No.3) on the ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that, though, the R.o.R. of the case land was in the name of the Petitioner, but, the Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 was disposed of by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (O.P No.3) on being filed by the O.P. No.6 as per impugned order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure-5) for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land from the name of the Petitioner to the name of the O.P. No.6 without impleading the Petitioner or his vendor in the said Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 as a Party in that Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024.

For which, the Petitioner filed this writ petition against the O.P. No.6 and others praying for quashing the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure-5) passed in that Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (O.P No.3).

3. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.6 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. Nowhere, in the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure- 5) passed in Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (O.P No.3), it has been indicated/reflected about the impleadment of the Petitioner as a Party in that Mutation Appeal, though the R.o.R. of the case land was in the name of the Petitioner.

The propositions of law on his aspect has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

In a case between Alekh Chandra Rath Vrs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Orissa and others reported in 1989 (II) OLR 135 and 90 (1990) CLT 310 that,

if a person has suffered injustice on account of his non- impleadment as a party, which was concluded in his absence affecting his interest, in that case, it will be a fit case to re-open the matter to comply the requirements of the principles of natural justice. Matter remanded for disposal on merit.

5. Here in this matter at hand, when the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure-5) has been passed in Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (O.P No.3) without impleading the Petitioner as a Party in that Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner in that Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 for correction of the R.o.R. of the case land from the name of the Petitioner to the name of the O.P. No.6, though the R.o.R. of the case land was in the name of the Petitioner much prior to the passing of the impugned order including on the date of passing of the impugned order and when the impugned order vide Annexure-5 has been passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (O.P No.3) violating the principles of natural justice, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure-5) passed in Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (O.P No.3) cannot sustainable under law.

For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 (Annexure- 5) passed in Mutation Appeal No.62 of 2024 by the Sub-Collector, Bhadrak (O.P No.3) through this writ petition filed by the Petitioner. 6. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.

8. The impugned order dated 13.08