IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27452 of 2025 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

Kamalakanta Sethy …. Petitioner -versus-

Collector, Khurda and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. P. K. Nanda, Advocate.

For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak, Learned Additional Sanding Counsel CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :24.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :24.11.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing(setting aside) the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed in Mutation Case No.11916 of 2022 by the Additional Tahsildar, Jatani.

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

3. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner had purchased the case land through registered sale deed through RSD No.18217 dated 27.10.2009 from one Kailash Bhoi, who had got the case land on lease as per order passed in Lease Case No.796 of 1967-68 on the basis of such lease. The said land was recorded in the name of Kailash Bhoi under Khata No.450, Plot No.543/1062 Ac.0.100 decimals in Mouza-Uttarmundamuhan under Jatani Tahasil. Kailash Bhoi sold the same through RSD No.18217 dated 27.10.2009 to the petitioner. After purchase, the petitioner applied for mutation of the case land to his name by filing Mutation Case No.11916 of 2022 before the Tahasildar, Jatani. The Tahasildar, Jatani transferred the said case to the Additional Tahasildar, Jatani for its disposal, but, the Additional Tahasildar, Jatani rejected the said Mutation Case No.11916 of 2022 of the petitioner through one line impugned order, i.e., “the applied plot is a lease land. Hence, it is rejected.”

4. The above impugned order is a very short and cryptic order without application of mind. Because, proper reasons have not been assigned by the Additional Tahasildar, Jatani for rejecting the mutation case of the petitioner.

5. It is the settled propositions of law that, an unreasoned and cryptic order like the impugned order cannot be sustainable under law. Because, any court or any authority including any administrative or revenue authority cannot pass any cryptic or unreasoned order without assigning proper reasons or the basis for passing such order.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Surendra Kumar Jain vrs. Santobai and another : reported in INSC(S.C.)-230 at Para No.12 that, an order must not be passed in a cryptic manner without recording any reason and must reflect the application of mind.

(ii) In a case between C. Saravana Kumar vrs. The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Saidapet, Chennai and another decided in W.P.(C) No.25723 of 2008 and M.P. No.2 of 2008(Mad.) at Para No.5 that, the act of passing a cryptic order itself amounts to violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

(iii) In a case between State of Uttarakhand and another vrs. Ravi Kumar(deceased) through legal representatives and others : reported in (2023) 18 scc-281(AT Paras 69 and 70) that, casual findings/observations made by the Revenue Authority or the Civil Court shall not be accepted at their face value. For which, the matter was remanded back for its fresh disposal.

6. As per law an unreasoned or cryptic is to be held as an order against the principles of natural justice.

Therefore, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this matter at hand, it is held that, the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 passed in Mutation Case No.11916 of 2022 by the Additional Tahsildar, Jatani being a cryptic and unreasoned order cannot be sustainable under law. The same is liable to b