IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21219 of 2013 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Md. Moiuddin and Another …. Petitioners -versus-

Tahasildar, Rourkela and Others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode):

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

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

Mr. A. Dash, Advocate.

{for O.P. Nos.4(a) to 4(c)}

Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate. {for O.P. No.2(a)}

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 20.04.2013 (Annexure-1) passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 by the Tahasildar, Rourkela (O.P.

No.1).

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the impugned order in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 was passed by the Tahasildar, Rourkela (O.P. No.1) on the basis of the order dated 07.07.2012 passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 under Section 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 and the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 was allowed in favour of the petitioners thereof. But, that Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 was filed against a dead person i.e. against Md. Kalimudin along with O.P. No.4. Because, Md. Kalimudin had expired much prior to the filing of R.P. No.104 of 2012 i.e. on dated 18.02.1993, which was also much prior to the initiation of Revenue Misc.

Case No.1 of 2012 before the Tahasildar, Rourkela (O.P. No.1).

In that Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2012, no notices were issued to the successors of the deceased recorded tenant i.e. successors of Md. Kalimudin and the successors of Md. Kalimudin (petitioners in this writ petition) were not made parties in the said Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2012. For which, they (petitioners) have prayed for quashing the final order dated 20.04.2013 (Annexure-1) passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 by the Tahasildar, Rourkela (O.P. No.1).

3. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. No.2(a), learned counsel for O.P. Nos.4(a) to 4(c) and learned ASC for the State.

4. As per the factual aspects, as discussed above, name of the recorded tenant of the case land i.e. Md. Kalimudin was corrected on the basis of the impugned order dated 20.04.2013 (Annexure-1) passed in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 by the Tahasildar, Rourkela (O.P. No.1) without issuing any notice to his LRs i.e. to the petitioners in this writ petition.

Therefore, it is held that, the impugned order dated 20.04.2013 (Annexure-1) in Revenue Misc. Case No.1 of 2012 has been passed by the Tahasildar, Rourkela (O.P. No.1) against a dead person i.e. against the deceased Md. Kalimudin, which is a nullity.

5. As per the final order passed in W.P.(C) No.21216 of 2013, the order dated 07.07.2012 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 has already been quashed and the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 has been remitted back for deciding the same afresh as per law.

6. It is the judicial coronary that, when the initial/original order is held to be illegal, then the subsequent orders on the basis of the initial order shall held as non-est in the eye of law.

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

(i) In a case between Badrinath Vrs. Government of Tamilnadu and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 that, once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of a superior authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime would fall to the ground. This principle of consequential orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.

(ii) In a case betwe