IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21216 of 2013 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Md. Moiuddin and another …. Petitioners -versus-

Joint Commissioner, …. Opposite Parties Consolidation & Settlement, Sambalpur and Ors.

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. T. K. Mishra, Advocate.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel.

Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate. {for O.P. No.3(a)}

Mr. A. Dash, Advocate. {for O.P. No.5(a) to 5(c)}

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :05.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :05.12.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 under Section 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the predecessor of the petitioners in this writ petition i.e. Md. Kalimudin was the O.P. No.1 in the R.P. No.104 of 2012 before the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur and the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 was filed by the father of the O.P. No.3(a) and the brother of the father of O.P. No.3(a) i.e. O.P. No.4 in this writ petition being the petitioners in that R.P.

No.104 of 2012.

The R.P. No.104 of 2012 was disposed of finally as per the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioners thereof.

3. As per the case of the petitioners, the O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012 i.e. Md. Kalimudin had expired on dated 18.02.1993 much prior to the filing of R.P. No.104 of 2012, as it appears from the death certificate vide Annexure-5.

4. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. No.3(a), learned counsel for O.P. Nos.5(a) to 5(c) and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur is a nullity, because the said order was passed against a dead person i.e.

against Md. Kalimudin and the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 was also filed against a dead person i.e. Md. Kalimudin along with O.P. No.5 in this writ petition, because Md. Kalimudin had expired on dated 18.02.1993 i.e. much prior to the filing of R.P. No.104 of 2012.

For which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 cannot be sustainable under law being a nullity. Therefore, the impugned order vide Annexure-1 is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for O.P. No.3(a) did not dispute to the above date of death of the O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012 i.e. Md. Kalimudin i.e. on dated 18.02.1993, which is much prior to the filing of R.P. No.104 of

2012.

7. As, the date of the death of O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012 on dated 18.02.1993 as per Annexure-5 is not under dispute, then at this juncture, it is held that, the R.P. No.104 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners thereof i.e. father of the O.P. No.3(a) and his brother i.e. O.P. No.4 in this writ petition against O.Ps thereof including the dead person i.e. Md. Kalimudin (O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012) and the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 in R.P. No.104 of 2012 against a dead person i.e.

against O.P. No.1 (Md. Kalimudin) is held as nullity.

8. The law relating to the sustainability of an order, when the same is passed either in favour of and/or against a dead person has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Court and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Gurnam Singh (Dead) through LRs and others Vrs.

Gurbachan Kaur (dead) by LRs. reported in (2017) 13 SCC 414 that, any decision in fa