Accrued rights cannot be retrospectively altered; initial orders deemed illegal invalidate subsequent actions made under them.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

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 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 and to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.4) to keep the SATWA STATUS in the RoR of the case land as “STHITIBAN”, which was prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1).

2. As per the case of the petitioner, the case land was settled in the name of one Sitabai Gupta for agricultural purposes by the Government under a permanent lease in W.L. Case No.2003/78. The said permanent lease of the case land for agricultural purposes in favour of Sitabai Gupta was confirmed as per order dated 09.11.2006 passed in RC No.13/81 by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.3).

When, the permanent lessee of the case land, i.e., Sitabai Gupta died leaving behind the vendors of the petitioner as successors, for which, the vendors of the petitioner inherited the case land from Sitabai Gupta as successors of Sitabai Gupta. The successors of Sitabai Gupta being the vendors sold the case land to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 14.12.2010 vide Annexure-3 and delivered possession thereof. Accordingly, since the date of purchase, i.e., since 14.12.2010, the petitioner possessed the case land exercising all rights thereon like its vendors. Then, the petitioner converted the case land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose, i.e., to homestead(Gharabari) as per the final order passed in a conversion proceeding vide OLR Case No.4993 of 2011 under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960.

Accordingly, the RoR of the case land vide Khata No.474/4108, Plot No.516/1759(Annexure-4) was prepared under 'sthitiban status' having its kisam as 'gharabari' in the name of the petitioner. That RoR vide Annexure-4 in the name of the petitioner was not challenged by anybody including the State. Accordingly, the petitioner had been paying rent of the case land in its name through valid rent receipts.

Surprisingly, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.5) initiated a Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 on the basis of a letter of Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide Letter No.RDM- CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-23868/R&DM dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure-5) and corrected/changed the SATWA STATUS in the RoR of the case land vide Khata No.474/4108, Plot No.516/1759 (Annexure-4) as per impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR” and on the basis of such impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1), the SATWA Column in the RoR of the case land was changed from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR”. The changed/corrected impugned RoR is Annexure-2.

3. For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Anenxure-1) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 as well as challenging to the changed/corrected impugned RoR vide Annexure-2 by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the Annexures-1 and 2 on the ground that, the Annexures-1 and 2 are not legally sustainable.

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

5. It i