ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.33061 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Prasan Kumar Jena

… 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. T. Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel.

(State Opp. Parties)

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 29.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :29.11.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the final order dated 02.06.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.26166 of 2024 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.6) on the ground that, his Mutation Case No.26166 of 2024 has been rejected by the Opp. Party No.6 as per the impugned order dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-7) without giving any opportunity of hearing 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 in this matter, the impugned order passed by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.6) on dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-7) as well as its previous order dated 13.01.2025 in Mutation Case No.26166 of 2024 are depicted hereunder:

13/01/2025 “ISSUE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED TO PRESENT BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED FOR VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS.”

Priyanka Nahak Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.

02/06/2025 “This Case is taken up today. The applicant is not present on the date of hearing. Hence, the relevant documents related to this case could not be verified to establish the flow of title from the RT to proposed RT after giving reasonable opportunities for hearing. Therefore, this case is rejected”

Priyanka Nahak Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar.

4. It appears from the order dated 13.01.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.26166 of 2024, the next date thereof was not fixed, but surprisingly, the record of Mutation Case No.26166 of 2024 was put up on dated 02.06.2025 and the impugned order for rejection was passed by the Opp. Party No.6 on the ground of absence of the petitioner as well as for non-filing of documents by him (petitioner).

So, due to non-fixing of the Mutation Case No.26166 of

2024 from 13.01.2025 to 02.06.2025 by the Opp. Party No.6, there was no scope or opportunity for the petitioner to know that, his mutation case shall be taken up by the Opp. Party No.6 on 02.06.2025. For which, the absence of the petitioner on 02.06.2025 before the Opp. Party No.6 was obvious and natural.

5. As such, the impugned order in Mutation Case No.26166 of 2024 has been passed on dated 02.06.2025 by the Opp.

Party No.6 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 case between Shivaji vrs. Parwatibai and others reported in 2025(2) Civil Law Judgment(S.C.)-528 that, when a case is disposed of against any party without giving him/her an opportunity of hearing, such disposal deserves to be deprecated in view of 2023 SCC online S.C.-1210 between Suresh Lataruji Ramteke vrs. Sau.Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and others, for which, matter is required to be remitted back for its decision afresh.

6. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order passed on dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-7) in Mutation Case No.26166 of 2024 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.6)

through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

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

8. In result, the writ petition fil