Md.Moinuddin Vs Joint Commnr.Consol

Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 under Section 15(b) of the O.S.S. Act, 1958 by the

¶19

Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur.

¶20

Page 1 of 6

¶21

2 . The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the predecessor of the petitioners in this writ petition i.e. Md. Kalimudin was the O.P. No.1 in the R.P. No.104 of 2012 before the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur and the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 was filed by the father of the O.P. No.3(a) and the brother of the father of O.P. No.3(a) i.e. O.P. No.4 in this writ petition being the petitioners in that R.P. No.104 of 2012.

¶22

The R.P. No.104 of 2012 was disposed of finally as per the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioners thereof.

¶23

3 . As per the case of the petitioners, the O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012 i.e. Md. Kalimudin had expired on dated 18.02.1993 much prior to the filing of R.P. No.104 of 2012, as it appears from the death certificate vide Annexure-5.

¶24

4 . Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P. No.3(a), learned counsel for O.P. Nos.5(a) to 5(c) and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶25

5 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur is a nullity, because the said order was passed against a dead person i.e.

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

against Md. Kalimudin and the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 was also filed against a dead person i.e. Md. Kalimudin along with O.P. No.5 in this writ petition, because Md. Kalimudin had expired on dated 18.02.1993 i.e. much prior to the filing of R.P. No.104 of 2012.

¶28

For which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 cannot be sustainable under law being a nullity. Therefore, the impugned order vide Annexure-1 is liable to be quashed.

¶29

6 . Learned counsel for O.P. No.3(a) did not dispute to the above date of death of the O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012 i.e. Md. Kalimudin i.e. on dated 18.02.1993, which is much prior to the filing of R.P. No.104 of 2012.

¶30

7 . As, the date of the death of O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012 on dated 18.02.1993 as per Annexure-5 is not under dispute, then at this juncture, it is held that, the R.P. No.104 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners thereof i.e. father of the O.P. No.3(a) and his brother i.e. O.P. No.4 in this writ petition against O.Ps thereof including the dead person i.e. Md. Kalimudin (O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012) and the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 in R.P. No.104 of 2012 against a dead person i.e. against O.P. No.1 (Md. Kalimudin) is held as nullity.

¶31

8 . The law relating to the sustainability of an order, when the same is passed either in favour of and/or against a dead person has already been

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

clarified by the Hon’ble Court and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶34

(i) In a case between Gurnam Singh (Dead) through LRs and others Vrs. Gurbachan Kaur (dead) by LRs. reported in (2017) 13 SCC 414 that,

¶35

any decision in favour of and/or against dead person renders such decision

¶36

nullity.

¶37

(ii) In a case between Raniya Bai Vrs. Tekmani Rathore and others reported in 2023 Livelaw (MP) 64 that ,

¶38

any decree passed in favour of or against a dead person is a nullity, as it has

¶39

been passed in favour of a dead person, for which, the same is nullity. (Para 10)

¶40

9 . When, it is the settled propositions of law that, any order passed either in favour of or against a dead person is a nullity and when in this matter at hand, the R.P. No.104 of 2012 was filed against a dead person i.e. Md. Kalimudin (O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012) and when the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) has been passed against the said deceased person i.e. O.P. No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012, then at this juncture, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure1) passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement

¶41

& Consolidation, Sambalpur cannot be sustainable under law.

¶42

10 . When, it is held above that, the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in R.P. No.104 of 2012 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur is not sustainable under law, then at this juncture, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioners

¶43

(successors of the deceased O.P.No.1 in R.P. No.104 of 2012).

¶44

Page 4 of 6

¶45

11 . Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same is to be allowed.

¶46

12 . In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.

¶47

The impugned order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-1) passed in R.P.

¶48

No.104 of 2012 by the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur (O.P. No.1) is quashed (set aside).

¶49

The matter vide R.P. No.104 of 2012 is remitted back (remanded back) to the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur for deciding the same afresh as per law after impleading all the LRs of the deceased O.P. No.1 of the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 as well as the LRs of the deceased O.P. No.5 by the petitioners and to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof including the petitioners in this writ petition and the parties thereof including the petitioners are at liberty to raise/agitate all the grounds in their favour including the grounds taken by them in this writ petition at the time of hearing of the R.P. No.104 of 2012 and the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 shall be disposed of complying the principles of natural justice as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶50

13 . The parties to this writ petition are directed to appear before the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur in R.P. No.104 of 2012 on dated 19.12.2025 and to produce the certified copy of

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

this judgment for the purpose of receiving the directions of the Addl. Commissioner, Settlement & Consolidation, Sambalpur as to further proceedings of the said R.P. No.104 of 2012 on the basis of the observations made in this judgment.

¶53

14 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally.

¶54

(A.C. Behera), Judge.

¶55

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 05.12.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer

¶56

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Dec-2025 11:11:09

¶57

Page 6 of 6

Md.Moinuddin v. Joint Commnr.Consol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Moinuddin v. Joint Commnr.Consol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golekh Vs Bhimsen

Sasmita Padhy@Sasmita Padhi Vs State of Orissa

Jayakrushna Senapati Vs Commissioner,Consolidation

Md.Moinuddin Vs Tahasildar,Rourkela

Kunta Ku.Sahu Vs Settlement Officer

Panchanana Patro Vs State of Odisha