Allowed

M/S Shyam Shree Residency Pvt.Ltd, Khurda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC22 Jan 2026WP(C)/37178/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A company holding land under a sthitiban RoR challenged a suo motu mutation order changing its SATWA status to pattadar based on a later government notification. Holding that notifications operate prospectively and cannot divest accrued rights, the High Court quashed the mutation order and directed restoration of the sthitiban status.

What did the court decide?

Impugned mutation order dated 22.08.2025 and SATWA change quashed; Additional Tahasildar directed to restore RoR Khata No.474/4108 as 'STHITIBAN' in petitioner's name within one week.

M/S Shyam Shree Residency Pvt.Ltd, Khurda Vs State of Odisha — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.37178 of 2025

¶3

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶4

M/s. Shyam Shree Residency …. Petitioner Pvt. Ltd., Khurda

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha, represented …. Opposite Parties by Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others

¶7

Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Dash, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Learned Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

Date of hearing : 24.12.2025 / date of judgment : 22.01.2026

¶11

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) in Suo Motu

¶12

Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 and to direct the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.4) to keep the SATWA STATUS in the RoR of the case land as “STHITIBAN”, which was prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1).

¶13

2 . As per the case of the petitioner, the case land was settled in the name of one Sitabai Gupta for agricultural purposes by the Government under a permanent lease in W.L. Case No.2003/78. The said permanent lease of the

¶14

case land for agricultural purposes in favour of Sitabai Gupta was confirmed as per order dated 09.11.2006 passed in RC No.13/81 by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.3).

¶15

When, the permanent lessee of the case land, i.e., Sitabai Gupta died leaving behind the vendors of the petitioner as successors, for which, the vendors of the petitioner inherited the case land from Sitabai Gupta as successors of Sitabai Gupta. The successors of Sitabai Gupta being the vendors sold the case land to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 14.12.2010 vide Annexure-3 and delivered possession thereof. Accordingly,

¶16

Page 2 of 13

¶17

since the date of purchase, i.e., since 14.12.2010, the petitioner possessed the case land exercising all rights thereon like its vendors. Then, the petitioner converted the case land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose, i.e., to homestead(Gharabari) as per the final order passed in a conversion proceeding vide OLR Case No.4993 of 2011 under Section 8-A of the OLR Act, 1960.

¶18

Accordingly, the RoR of the case land vide Khata No.474/4108, Plot No.516/1759(Annexure-4) was prepared under „sthitiban status‟ having its kisam as „gharabari‟ in the name of the petitioner. That RoR vide Annexure-4 in the name of the petitioner was not challenged by anybody including the State. Accordingly, the petitioner had been paying rent of the case land in its name through valid rent receipts.

¶19

Surprisingly, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.5) initiated a Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 on the basis of a letter of Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide Letter No.RDMCHS-PGOT-0303-2020-23868/R&DM dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure-5) and corrected/changed the SATWA STATUS in

¶20

Page 3 of 13

¶21

the RoR of the case land vide Khata No.474/4108, Plot No.516/1759 (Annexure-4) as per impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR” and on the basis of such impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1), the SATWA Column in the RoR of the case land was changed from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR”. The changed/corrected impugned RoR is Annexure-2. 3 . For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Anenxure-1) passed by the Additional

¶22

Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 as well as challenging to the changed/corrected impugned RoR vide Annexure-2 by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the Annexures-1 and 2 on the ground that, the Annexures-1 and 2 are not legally sustainable.

¶23

4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶24

Page 4 of 13

¶25

5. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-1) in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 by the Additional Tahasilar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5), the SATWA STATUS in the RoR of the case land vide Khata No.474/4108, Plot No.516/1759 as per Annexure-4 was “STHITIBAN”, to which, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) changed/corrected on the basis of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR” as per the notification issued by the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha vide Letter No.RDM-CHS-PGOT0303-2020-23868/R&DM dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure-5).

¶26

6 . The law concerning the legal effect of the resolutions and notification of the Government has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶27

(i) In a case between Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora and another vrs. State of Haryana and others passed in Writ Petition Nos.6436-37 of 1980 and Civil appeal Nos.3095-96 of 1980 decided on 26^th April, 1984 that,

¶28

accrued rights cannot be taken away by Government by making amendment of the rules with retrospective effect.

¶29

Page 5 of 13

¶30

(ii) In a case between State of Gujarat and another vrs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others : reported in ( 1983) 2 SCC-33 that,

¶31

Government cannot take away the accrued rights of the petitioner and the appellant by making amendment of the Rules with retrospective effect.

¶32

(iii) In a case between State of Madhya Pradesh vrs. Yogendra Srivastava : reported in (2010) 12 SCC-538 that,

¶33

rights and benefits which have already been earned or acquired under the existing Rules cannot be taken away by amending the Rules with retrospective effect.

¶34

(iv) In a case between Baisnab Charan Panda and others vrs. State of Orissa and others : reported in 130(2020) CLT-564 that,

¶35

the resolution should have been prospective and could not have been taken away the benefit already accrued to the party without involving the person likely to be affected in such process.

¶36

(v) In a case between Kamal Kishore vrs. State and others ; reported in (1995) 02 J&K CK 0008 that,

¶37

the accrued rights and the benefits vested cannot be taken away be amendment to rules retrospectively.

¶38

(vi) In a case between Prestige Estates Projects Limited, through its Vice President, The Falcon House, No.1 Main Guard Cross Road, Bangalore vrs. State of Tamilnadu and another (Madras) passed in W.P. Nos.25677 and 25678 of 2012 decided on 13.12.2012 that,

¶39

accrued rights cannot be taken away by subsequent amendment/orders of the authorities.

¶40

(vii) In a case between Chandra Prakash Rath vrs. State of Odisha and others decided on 14.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.31150 of 2025 Para No.7 that,

¶41

rights which has accrued to a person much prior to the notification made by the Government, such right cannot be taken away through any subsequent notification of the Government.

¶42

Page 6 of 13

¶43

7 . In view of the propositions of law settled in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the operation of all notifications and resolutions of the Government are prospective in nature, but, the same will have no retrospective effect.

¶44

8 . It is the judicial coronary that, when 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.

¶45

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

¶46

(i) In a case between Badrinath vrs. Government of Tamilnadu and others : reported in (2000) 8 SCC-395 that,

¶47

once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of a 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 quashi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.

¶48

(ii) In a case between State of Kerala vrs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayuogam and another : reported in (2001) 10 SCC-191 that,

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Page 7 of 13

¶52

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

¶53

(iv) In a case between State of Punjab vrs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others etc. : reported in 2012(51) OCR (SC)-220 that,

¶54

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

¶55

9 . In addition to the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the lack of retrospective effect of the Notification No.23868/R&DM dated 02.07.2025 of the Government, his second limb of argument was that, even otherwise the Notification dated 02.07.2025 can have no applicability to the given facts relating to the lease lands granted for agricultural purpose in W. L. Cases under the OGLS Act as per the prevailing lease principles then holding the field like the W.L. Case No.2003/78 in this matter at hand in respect of the case land, it was pointed out by him that, Section 4(f) of the OLR Act, 1960 confers heritable right upon the settlee of the case land and also confers alienable right in favour of the settlee after the lock period of ten years for its nonalienation. The Para No.26 of the Letter No.22206 dated

¶56

19.06.2025 of the Government also in support of conversion

¶57

Page 8 of 13

¶58

of agricultural lease hold land like the case land from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes as per Section 8-A of the OLR Act. According to him, when, the alienation of the case land has been made much after ten

¶59

years of the settlement of the case land in favour of the predecessor of the vendors of the petitioner in W.L. Case No.2003/78 and when, the conversion of the case land from agriculture purpose to homestead purpose has been made by the order of the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar in OLR Case No.4993 of 2011 under Section 8-A of the OLR Act and when, the aforesaid conversion and alienation of the case land and preparation of the RoR of the case land vide Annexure-4 in favour of the petitioner were inconformity with law, for which, the impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed by the Opposite Party No.5 in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 and the consequential change in the RoR of the case on the basis of the said Annexure-1 cannot be sustainable under law.

¶60

10 . The aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid decisions, provisions of law envisaged in Section 4 of the OLR Act, 1960 and

¶61

Page 9 of 13

¶62

Letter No.22206 dated 19.06.2025 of the R&DM

¶63

Department, Government of Odisha for making the impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.5) as well as the impugned correction of the SATWA STATUS in the RoR of the case land in Khata No.474/4108 from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR” as unsustainable under law cannot be held as inacceptable under law.

¶64

11 . Here in this matter at hand, when much prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-1) in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 and when, much prior to the correction of SATWA status in the RoR vide Khata No.474/4108 from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR”, the RoR of the Khata No.474/4108 was continuing in the name of the petitioner under “STHITIBAN SATWA STATUS” on being prepared by the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.4) since the year 2011, then at this juncture, as per the order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025(Annexure-1), the Additional Tahasildar,

¶65

Page 10 of 13

¶66

Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) should not have

¶67

changed the SATWA STATUS of Khata No.474/4108 from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR” on the basis of the subsequent notification dated 02.07.2025(Annexure-5).

¶68

For which, the impugned order dated

¶69

22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 as well as correction of SATWA STATUS in the RoR of the case land vide Khata No.474/4108 from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR” cannot be sustainable under law.

¶70

12 . Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) as well as with the correction of SATWA STATUS in the RoR vide Khata No.474/4108 from “STHITIBAN” to “PATTADAR” through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶71

13 . As such, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

¶72

Page 11 of 13

¶73

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

¶74

The impugned order dated 22.08.2025(Annexure-1) passed in Suo Motu Mutation Case No.7482 of 2025 by the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubanswar(Opposite Party No.5) and the correction of SATWA STATUS in the RoR vide Khata No.474/4108 are quashed.

¶75

Due to the quashing of the Annexure-1 as well as the change of SATWA STATUS in the RoR of the case land vide Khata No.474/4108, the Additional Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar (Opposite Party No.5) is directed through issuance of writ of mandamus for preparation of the RoR of Khata No.474/4108, Plot No.516/1759 in Mouza-Patia in the name of the petitioner correcting the SATWA STATUS thereof from “PATTADAR” to “STHITIBAN” and to keep/maintain the same as it was prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure-1) as “STHITIBAN” and the Additional Tahasildar,

¶76

Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.5) is also directed to correct the Satwa STATUS in the RoR of Khata No.474/4108 preparing the same reflecting its SATWA

¶77

Page 12 of 13

¶78

STATUS as “STHITIBAN” in the name of the petitioner within a period of one week positively from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment before the Opposite Party No.5.

¶79

15 . As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶80

( A.C. Behera ) Judge

¶81

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22^nd of January, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

¶82

Signature Not Verified

¶83

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 27-Jan-2026 07:56:00

¶84

Page 13 of 13

M/S Shyam Shree Residency Pvt.Ltd, Khurda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shyam Shree Residency Pvt.Ltd, Khurda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpana Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Nirmala Ch.Singh Vs Gourahari Deo

Sanjay Pradhan Vs Kshetra Mohan Jena

Bhagabati Tarai Vs Kalpana Tarai

Sri Ram Shg,Sunathara, Ganjam Vs State of Odisha

Maa Mahalaxmi Shg, Mathura Vs State of Odisha