IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23588 of 2025 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

Sankar Das and another …. Petitioners -versus-

State of Orissa and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioners - Mr.Dharmendra Sethy, Advocate For Opposite Parties- Mr.B.R.Behera (for O.P. No.5)

Mr.S.Nayak, ASC CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :10.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :10.11.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners praying for quashing the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in Mutation Appeal No.66 of 2025 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P No.3), wherein, the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P No.3) had remanded the matter i.e. Mutation Case No.4199 of 2023 to the Tahasildar, Balasore (O.P. No.4) for deciding the same afresh as per law giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties after setting aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Mutation Case No.4199 of 2023 by the Tahasildar, Balasore (O.P.

No.4).

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.5 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in Mutation Appeal No.66 of 2025 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P No.3) cannot be sustainable under law, because, the said impugned order has been passed without providing any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners.

To which, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.5 objected contending that, the impugned order of remand for deciding the Mutation Case No.4199 of 2023 afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners complying the principles of natural justice shall not cause any prejudice to any of the Parties including the Petitioners of this writ petition, because, the same will be in furtherance of rendering substantial justice to the Parties including the Petitioners of this writ petition.

The learned ASC for the State also did not support to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

4. When, as per the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in Mutation Appeal No.66 of 2025, the Sub- Collector, Balasore (O.P No.3) has remanded the Mutation Case No.4199 of 2023 to the Tahasildar, Balasore (O.P. No.4) for deciding the same afresh as per law giving opportunity of being heard to the Parties thereof including the Petitioners in this writ petition, then at this juncture, it is held that, the said impugned order is neither prejudicial nor detrimental to the interest of any of the Parties including the Petitioners in this writ petition, rather, the same is beneficial to all the Parties including the Petitioners in this writ petition for no other reason, but, for rendering substantial justice to them (Parties).

For which, the question of interfering with the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in Mutation Appeal No.66 of 2025 by the Sub-Collector, Balasore (O.P No.3) through this writ petition filed by the Petitioners does not arise.

5. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioners, the same is to be dismissed.

6. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners is dismissed. 7. The Tahasildar, Balasore (O.P. No.4) is directed to decide the Mutation Case No.4199 of 2023 as per law as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the Parties before the Tahasildar, Balasore (O.P. No.4) in Mutation Case No.4199 of 2023.

8. The Parties of this writ petition are directed to appear before the Tahasildar, Balasore (O.P. No.4) in Mutation Case No.4199 of 2023 on dated 21.11.2025 and to produce the certified copy of this judgm