IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35474 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Jyoti Ranjan Mohanty …. Petitioner -versus-

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

For Petitioner - Mr. B. K. Sharma, Advocate.

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

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :16.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025 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 Case No.7496 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) and to direct the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) to keep the R.o.R. of the case land vide Khata No.474/2194 Plot No.516/1761/3851 in Mouza Patia under Bhubaneswar Tahasil in the district of Khordha, as it was prior to the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.7496 of 2025.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the case land i.e. Plot No.516/1761/3851 Ac1.00 decimals under Khata No.474/2194 was under Sthitiban status in the name of the petitioner and kisam of the case land was Gharabari. But, on the basis of the Notification issued by the Government in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-23868/R&DM,dated 02.07.2025, the O.P. No.5 initiated a Suo Moto Mutation Case No.7496 of 2025 and as per order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.7496 of 2025, the O.P. No.5 (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar) changed the Sthitiban Satwa status of the petitioner from Khata No.474/2194 containing the Plot No.516/1761/3851 to Pattadar status and prepared new R.o.R. vide Annexure-5 correcting the stithiban status of the petitioner from the same 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 Case No.7496 of 2025 as well as to the corrected R.o.R. vide Annexure-5 and to keep the record and status of the case land under Khata No.474/2194 as it was under sthitiban status in the name of the petitioner prior to the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.7496 of 2025.

3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

4. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, prior to the impugned order passed in Suo Moto Mutation Case No.7496 of 2025 by the O.P. No.5 (Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar), the status in the R.o.R. of the case land vide Khata No.474/2194 in the name of the petitioner was under sthitiban status, to which, the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (O.P. No.5) has changed from sthitiban status to pattadar status on the basis of the Notification issued by the Government in Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide LetterNo.RDM-CHS-PGOT-0303-2020-

23868/R&DM,dated 02.07.2025.

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