Sania Singh Vs State of Odisha

“ In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this writ application, issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to:-

¶18

(i)Why the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.7401 of 2025 and order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Mutation Case No.7386 of 2025 by the Opposite Party No.4 shall not be quashed.

¶19

(ii) Why the Letter No.4695 dated 26.12.2025 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 to refuse registration shall not be held as bad in the eyes of law and be quashed.

¶20

(iii) Why the Opposite Party No.3 shall not be directed to allow the registration of sale deed under Annexure-1 in respect of the schedule properties.

¶21

And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then this Hon’ble court be further pleased to make said rule absolute by issuing appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to grant the ends of justice.

¶22

And/or to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deem just fit equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in order to secure justice to the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

Page 1 of 3

¶25

By a suo motu mutation case registered by the Additional 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.

¶26

Mr. Ghadei, 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. Ghadei 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:-

¶27

“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. 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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Page 2 of 3

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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.”

¶38

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

¶39

Since the law has been settled, the writ application is disposed of directing the Additional 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 25.07.2025 shall not be acted upon.

¶40

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶41

Judge

¶42

Puspanjali

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 17-Mar-2026 11:49:39

¶45

Page 3 of 3

Sania Singh v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sania Singh v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siba Narayan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Jayapuria Vs State of Orissa

Ranjita Bhumiji Vs State of Odisha

Manjula Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Amulya Kumar Dehury Vs State of Odisha

Rupali Lenka Vs State of Odisha