IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.36232 of 2023

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

Santosh Kiran Majhi …. Petitioner

-versus-

Addl. Sub-Collector, Berhampur, …. Opposite Parties

Ganjam and others

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. S. Biswal,

Advocate.

For Opposite Parties- Mr. P. Mohanty,

Sr.Advocate. (for O.P. No.2)

Mr. G. Mohanty,

Sanding Counsel (for O.P. Nos.1 & 4)

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :11.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment :11.09.2025

A.C. Behera, J. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned senior advocate for O.P. No.2 and learned SC for O.P. Nos.1 & 4. 2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the final order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the Addl. Sub-Collector, Berhampur, Ganjam (O.P. No.1) in Mutation Appeal Case No.88 of 2023 on the ground that, the petitioner (who was the respondent

by the Addl. Sub-Collector, Berhampur, Ganjam (O.P. No.1). For which, the said order vide Annexure-4 is required to be quashed.

To which, learned senior advocate for the O.P. No.2 objected contending that, the impugned order vide Annexure-4 itself speaks that, despite news paper publication, respondent No.2 of that Mutation Appeal Case No.88 of 2023 (petitioner in this writ petition) was absent. So, it cannot be held that, the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

3. It has been reflected in the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure-4) by the O.P. No.1 that, “Notices duly served. The advocate for appellant is present and Addl. Govt. Pleader appeared from the side of the respondent No.1. Despite the newspaper publication, the respondent No.2 is absent.

This order is set ex-parte.”

4. In the above impugned order vide Annexure-4, there is no indication on which date and on which paper notice for the respondent No.2 (petitioner in this writ petition) was published and on which date the said notice was made sufficient.

There is specific indication in the impugned order that, the said order is set ex-parte, but there is no provision under law for the Appellate Court to make any respondent ex-parte.

For which, the above observations made in this impugned order vide Annexure-4 i.e. the said order is set ex-parte itself probabilising the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent No.2 in that Mutation Appeal Case No.88 of 2023) that, the opportunity of being heard was not given to the petitioner in this writ petition (respondent No.2 in Mutation Appeal Case No.88 of 2023) by the Addl. Sub-

Collector, Berhampur (O.P. No.1).

Therefore, the said impugned order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure-4)

passed by O.P. No.1 cannot be sustainable under law.

So, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

5. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

The same must succeed.

6. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest.

The impugned order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure-4) passed in Mutation Appeal Case No.88 of 2023 by the Addl. Sub-Collector, Berhampur (O.P. No.1) is quashed (set aside).

back (remanded back) to the Addl. Sub-Collector, Berhampur (O.P. No.1) for deciding the same afresh as per law within three months from the date of appearance of the parties in that Mutation Appeal Case No.88 of 2023 after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof.

The parties are directed to appear before the Addl. Sub-Collector, Berhampur (O.P. No.1) in Mutation Appeal Case No.88 of 2023 on dated 22.09.2025 and to file the certified copy of this judgment for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Addl. Sub-Collector, Berhampur (O.P. No.1) as to further proceedings of that Mutation Appeal Case No.88 of

2023.

7. A