Disposed

Prasanna Kumar Patnaik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC8 May 2026WP(C)/10288/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a suo motu mutation changing his land record status from Sthitiban to Pattadar pursuant to a Department circular, contending circulars operate prospectively. The Court, noting the settled law and a Coordinate Bench decision, disposed of the writ directing the Tahasildar to reconsider in light of that judgment.

What did the court decide?

Addl. Tahasildar directed to reconsider in light of Chandra Prakash Rath within four weeks; order dated 21.8.2025 not to be acted upon till then.

Prasanna Kumar Patnaik Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.14240 of 2026

¶3

Surendra Prasad Mallik

¶4

.…

¶5

Petitioner Represented by

¶6

Mr. Chiranjeev Bidyabhushan,

¶7

Advocate

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

State of Odisha & Others

¶10

.… Opp. Parties Represented by

¶11

A.S.C.

¶12

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

08.5.2026.

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶19

prayer:-

¶20

“It is therefore most prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause and in case they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then issue appropriate writ, direction, or order directing the Opp. Parties:

¶21

A) By quashing the order passed by O.P as it appears in the present ROR as Misc. Case No7867/2025 (Annexure-3).

¶22

B) To rectify/correct the ROR of the petitioner as it was before the order in Misc. Case No-7867/2025 was passed, i.e., from "Pattadar" to "Sthitiban";

¶23

C) pass any further order as Your Lordship deems fit & just as per the facts of the case.

¶24

And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶25

Page 1 of 3

¶26

By a suo motu mutation case registered by the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the land in question recorded in the name of the petitioner under Stitiban status, was converted to Pattadar s tatus purportedly on the basis of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department Circular dated 02.07.2025.

¶27

Mr. Bidyabhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initiation of proceeding as well as the order passed therein is entirely contrary to the law long settled that operation of a Government circular/notification shall always be prospective. Mr. Das refers to a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Rath V. State of Odisha & Others (W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025), wherein the Coordinate Bench, after taking note of several Supreme Court judgments on the point, held as follows:-

¶28

“So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the operation of all the notification and resolutions of the Government are prospective in nature, but the same will have no retrospective effect.

¶29

6. It is the judicial coronary that, when the initial order is held to be illegal, then the documents/orders prepared on the basis of the said initial orders shall be deemed to be non-est in the eye of law.

¶30

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

¶31

(i)In a case between Badrinath Vrs. Government of Tamilnadu & Others (2000) 8 SCC 395 that,

¶32

Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of superior authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime would fall to the ground. This principle of consequential orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.

¶33

(ii)In a case between State of Kerala Vrs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam and Another reported in (2001) 10 SCC 191 that,

¶34

Once the main impugned order is set aside any other consequential order made pursuant to the same would automatically become ineffective. (Para 9)

¶35

Page 2 of 3

¶36

(iii)In a case between Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by LRs Vrs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by LRs reported in 2005 (3) SCC 422 that,

¶37

If remand order was bad under law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto would be non-est and have to be necessarily set aside.

¶38

(iv)In a case between State of Pubjab Vrs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others etc., reported in 2012 (51) OCR (SC) 220 that,

¶39

If initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reasons that illegality strikes at the root of the order.”

¶40

Learned State counsel fairly submits that the petitioner’s case is covered by the ratio decided in the cited case.

¶41

Since the law has been settled, the writ application is disposed of directing the Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to consider the matter strictly in light of the judgment of this Court referred above and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from today. Till such time, the order dated 21.8.2025 shall not be acted upon.

¶42

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶43

Judge

¶44

AKB

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cutta ck Date: 08-May-2026 18:16:18

¶47

Page 3 of 3

Prasanna Kumar Patnaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna Kumar Patnaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambika Prasad Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Dambaru Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Sambari Sing Vs State of Orissa

Debi Prasad Parida Vs State of Odisha

Bipini Kar Vs Dibya Jyoti Parida,Ias

Bharati Roy Vs State of Odisha