ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.35717 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Arpit Mohanty

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel.

(State Opp. Parties)

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

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

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the final order dated 14.04.2022 passed in Mutation Case No.22992 of 2019 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on the ground that, the said Mutation Case of the petitioner has been dropped on dated 14.04.2022 (Annexure-4) without giving any opportunity of being heard to him (petitioner).

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opp. Parties.

3. In order to have a clarity, the impugned orders passed in Mutation Case No.22992 of 2019 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar are depicted hereunder:

12/11/2021 “This case is taken up today. The R.I. Chandaka is reported that, the petitioner has not produced the original sale deed along with link document of title to prove the title of the vendor and also RSD is not showing LRMS portal. In the absence of all such along with Link RSD documents, the flow of title of the petitioner from recorded tenant is not proved. Issue a fresh notice to the applicant and put up before my Court for further hearing on the fixed dated on

27.11.2021.”

Chittaranajan Pilla Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.”

14/04/2022 “This case is taken up today. The applicant is absent on call or he has not submitted any required document to this Court. In the absence of all such supporting documents, the flow of title of the petitioner from the recorded tenant is not proved. Hence, this case is dropped.”

Chittaranajan Pilla Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.”

4. It appears from the above order sheets of Mutation Case No.22992 of 2019 that, as per order dated 12.11.2021, the Mutation Case No.22992 of 2019 was posted to 27.11.2021. The said Mutation Case was not placed on the date fixed i.e. on 27.11.2021. Then, without placing the records of Mutation Case No.22992 of 2019 on the date fixed i.e. on 27.11.2021 for any order, the same was put up on 14.04.2022. On that day, i.e. on 14.04.2022, surprisingly, impugned order (Annexure-4) was passed in the said Mutation Case to drop that case on the ground of absence of the petitioner as well as for non-filing of documents by the petitioner.

5. The above order sheets do not reveal about the giving up of any intimation to the petitioner that, his Mutation Case No.22992 of 2019 shall be taken up by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on 14.04.2022. Because, there is no reflection in its previous order sheet about the fixing up of the said case to 14.04.2022.

Due to non-fixing of the date of the Mutation Case No.22992 of 2019 to 14.04.2022 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, there was no scope or opportunity for the petitioner to know that, his mutation case shall be taken up by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar on 14.04.2022. For which, the absence of the petitioner on 14.04.2022 before the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar was obvious and natural.

6. Therefore, it is held that, the impugned order dated 14.04.2022 to drop the Mutation Case No.22992 of 2019 has been passed by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar violating the principles of natural justice.

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

I. In a case between High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vrs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2025 (1) Civ.L.J. (SC) 40 (Para No.16) that, any order passed without complying the principles of natural justice is to be treated as illegal.

II. In a ca