ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.36532 of 2015

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Prasanta Kumar Samantaray

… Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

Tahasildar, Ersama & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Das, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty. Standing Counsel.

(State-Opp. Parties)

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 23.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the orders dated 22.02.2024 & 18.03.2024 passed in Mutation Case No.6/2024 by the Tahasildar, Ersama (Opp. Party No.1).

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

3. The impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Mutation Case No.6/2024 is as follows:-

18/03/2024 “The case is taken up today. As per the report of the RI the case is hereby disallowed.”

Devi Prasad Acharya.

Tahasildar, Ersama

4. The above order dated 18.03.2024 passed by O.P. No.1 in Mutation Case No.6/2024 is a non-speaking order, as the same is not backed/supported by any reason.

For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated

18.03.2024 has been passed by the O.P. No.1 without application of mind as well as without any reason. So, the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 is a non-speaking order.

5. It is the settled propositions of law that, when any order is not backed/supported by any reason and the same is passed without application of mind terming that order as non- speaking order, the said order cannot be sustainable under law. Because as per law, that order is against 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 Sebastiani Lakra and Ors. Vrs. National Insurance Co. Ltd reported and another reported in 2018(4) CCC 50 (SC), every judicial order must contain reason. No judicial order is complete without reasons.

(ii) In a case between State of Rajasthan Vrs. Rajendra Prasad Jain reported in (2008)15 SCC 711, reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.

(iii) In a case between Atul Kuchhal Vrs. Hem Ram and another reported in 2015(1) CCC 640 (Rajasthan), an order which does not reveal ground for coming to a conclusion, the same falls in the category of non-speaking order.

(iv) In a case between U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vrs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors. reported in I (2012) Civ.L.T. 169 (SC) & Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 38, an unreasoned order shall be called as non-speaking order. The same cannot be sustainable under law. A non-speaking order is held to be an order in violation of principles of natural justice.

(v) In a case between Andhra Bank, Cuttack Vrs. Raghunath Tripathy and others reported in 2017 (2) O.J.R. (889), when any judgment suffers from non-application of mind, the said judgment cannot be sustainable under law.

6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court to the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Tahasildar, Ersama (O.P. No.1), it is held that, the impugned order passed on dated 18.03.2024 by the Tahasildar, Ersama (O.P. No.1) in Mutation Case No.6/2024 is not sustainable under law.

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

7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed.

8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

The impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Mutation Case No.6/2024 by the Tahasildar, Ersama (O.P.

No.1) is quashed.

The matter vide Muta