##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.37063 of 2025

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)

Rabindranath Behera …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. S.K.Sarangi, Sr.Adv.

For Opposite Parties - Mr. G.Mohanty, S.C.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :24.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :24.12.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for

quashing the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case

No.4658 of 2025 by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) and to

direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) to keep the R.o.R. of the

case land vide Khata No.617/166 Plot No.1399/3515 in Mouza Chandaka

under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha, as it was prior to

the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of

2025.

Page 1 of 7

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the case land i.e. Plot

No.1399/3515 Ac1.3680 decimals under Khata No.617/166 was in the

name of the late father of the Petitioner i.e. Ratnakar Behera under

Dakhal Satwa Sunya status and kisam thereof as Baje Fasal-3. But, on

the basis of the Notification dated 02.07.2025 issued by the Government

in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-

CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-23868/R&DM, the O.P. No.3 initiated a Suo

Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 and as per order passed in

Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025, the O.P. No.3

(Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) changed the status of Khata No.617/166 Plot

No.1399/3515 from Dakhal Satwa Sunya to Pattadar status and prepared

new R.o.R. vide Annexure-3 correcting the status thereof from Dakhal

Satwa Sunya to Pattadar.

For which, the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ

petition praying for quashing the impugned order passed in Suo Moto

Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 as well as to the corrected R.o.R.

vide Annexure-3 and to keep the record and status of the case land under

Khata No.617/166 as it was prior to the impugned order passed in Suo

Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 on the basis of Notification

dated 02.07.2025.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Page 2 of 7

4. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, prior to the impugned

order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Misc.Case No.4658 of 2025 by the

O.P. No.3 ( Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar), the status in the R.o.R. of the case

land vide Khata No.617/166 was under Dakhal Satwa Sunya status, to

which, the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.3) has changed from

Dakhal Satwa Sunya status to pattadar status on the basis of its

subsequent Notification dated 02.07.2025 of Revenue and Disaster

Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-

23868/R&DM of the Government.

5. The law concerning the effect of resolution and notification of the

Government has already been clarified in the ratio of the following

decisions:-

(i) In a case between Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora and another Vrs.

State of Haryana and others passed in Writ Petition Nos.6436-37

of 1980 and Civil Appeal Nos.3095-96 of 1980 decided on 26^th

April, 1984 that,

Accrued rights cannot be taken away by Government by

making amendment of the rules with retrospective effect.

(ii) In a case between State of Gujarat and another Vrs. Raman

Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others reported in 1983 (2) SCC 33 that,

Government cannot take away the accrued rights of the

petitioner and the appellant by making amendment of the Rules

with retrospective effect.

(iii) In a case between State of Madya Pradesh Vrs. Yogendra

Shrivastava reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 that,

Rights and benefits which have already been earned or

acquired under the existing Rules cannot be taken away by

amending the Rules with retrospective effect.

(iv) In a case between Baisnab Charan P