Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Arata Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 21005 of 2025
Decided On : 17-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pabitra Kumar Behera
For the Respondent: S. Nayak

Violation of natural justice principles renders administrative orders illegal, necessitating an opportunity for hearing in administrative proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 & 227 - Writ petition for quashing final order in Mutation Case - Impugned order dropped due to petitioner's absence, arising from lack of notice regarding the hearing date - Violated principles of natural justice as clarified in precedents. (Paras 5, 6, and 8)

(B) Natural Justice - Any order passed without providing a hearing or opportunity is deemed illegal, supporting the need for fair process in administrative decisions. (Paras 5 and 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to mutate property based on an unregistered Will. The Tahasildar dismissed the case due to the petitioner's absence on the hearing date, unaware of it because the date was not properly communicated.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, requiring the case to be heard afresh.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner had adequate notice for the hearing of his Mutation Case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of proper notification constituted a breach of natural justice, necessitating the quashing of the decision and remitting the case for a fresh hearing.

Result: Writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is quashed and case remitted for fresh decision.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed challenging tahasildar's order. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. natural justice violations render order illegal. (Para 5)
3. court finds merit in the petition. (Para 6 , 7)
4. writ petition allowed; order quashed and remanded. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the final order dated 30.05.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.2197 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Odagaon (Opp. Party No.3).

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Parties.

3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner had filed a Mutation Case vide Mutation Case No.2197 of 2025 before the Tahasildar, Odagaon (Opp. Party No.3) praying for Mutation of the properties to his name covered under a unregistered Will, but as per order dated 30.05.2025, the Tahasildar, Odagaon (Opp. Party No.3) dropped that Mutation Case of the petitioner on the ground of absence of the petitioner on that day.

4. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Tahasildar, Odagaon, he (petitioner) filed this writ petition praying for quashing the same.

5. It appears from the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure-1) that, the previous date of Mutation Case No.2197/2025 was on 15.05.2025. In the order dated 15.05.2025, there is no indication/reflection about the fixing of the Mutation Case No.2197/2025 to 30.05.2025.

So, due to non-fixing of the Mutation Case No.2197 of 2025 from 15.05.2025 to 30.05.2025 by the Opp. Party No.3, there was no scope or opportunity with the petitioner to know that, his mutation case shall be taken up by the Opp. Party No.3 on 30.05.2025. For which, the absence of the petitioner on 30.05.2025 before the Opp. Party No.3 was obvious and natural.

So, due to non-fixing of the Mutation Case No.2197 of 2025 by the Opp. Party No.3 from 15.05.2025 to 30.05.2025, there was no scope or opportunity with the petitioner to know that, his mutation case shall be taken up by the Opp. Party No.3 on 30.05.2025. For which, it is held that, the impugned order in Mutation Case No.2197/2025 has been passed by the Opp. Party No.3 violating the principles of natural justice. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

I. In a case between High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vrs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2025 (1) Civ.L.J. (SC) 40 (Para No.16) that, any order passed without complying the principles of natural justice is to be treated as illegal.

II. In a case between Shivaji vrs. Parwatibai and others reported in 2025(2) Civil Law Judgment(S.C.)-528 that, when a case is disposed of against any party without giving him/her an opportunity of hearing, such disposal deserves to be deprecated in view of 2023 SCC online S.C.-1210 between Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vrs. Sau.Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and others, for which, matter is required to be remitted back for its decision afresh.

6. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order passed on dated 30.05.2025 in Mutation Case No.2197 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Odagaon (Opp. Party No.3) through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

7. As such there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed.

8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest.

The impugned order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure-1) passed in Mutation Case No.2197 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Odagaon (Opp. Party No.3) is quashed.

The matter vide Mutation Case No.2197 of 2025 is remitted back to the Tahasildar, Odagaon (Opp. Party No.3) to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and others, if any following the guidelines already formula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document