Orissa High Court
M/S. Sahej Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Odisha & Others …. Opp. … on 2 May, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13184 of 2026
M/s. Sahej Ventures Pvt. Ltd., .... Petitioners
Bhubaneswar &Another Represented by
Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Represented by
Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
02.05.2026
I.A. No_______of 2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
. 2. This is an application filed by the Principal of the Power of
Attorney holder, who has filed the writ application seeking
intervention in the matter.
3. The I.A. be registered.
4. It is stated that originally the petitioner being the Power of
Attorney Holder of the Principal Intervener had filed this writ
application. Presently the Principal himself seeks intervention as
a petitioner in support of the contentions raised in the writ
application.
5. Learned State counsel has no objection to the I.A. being
allowed.
6. The I.A. is allowed.
7. The applicant of this I.A. be impleaded as Petitioner No.2.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file the
consolidated cause title in course of the day.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) No.13184 of 2026
Order No.
02.
1. The petitioners have approached this Court with the following
prayer:-
“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:
(i)Admit the writ application,
(ii)Call for the records,
(iii)Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show
cause as to why an appropriate nature of writ/writ(s) shall
not be issued.
(iv)And if the Opposite Parties do not file show cause or
show insufficient cause, issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari for set-aside/ quashing of the impugned
Notification/Circular dated 02.07.2025 under Annexue-4 and
impugned ROR under Annexure-5 of the Writ Application.
(v)And further may pleased to direct the Opposite Party
Nos.4 and 5 to correct the Status of land bearing Plot
No.516/1718 under Khata No.474/26 measuring Ac.1.00 dec.
Mouza-Patia from Pattadar to Stitiban, as recorded in the
ROR under Annexure-5 in the name of the Land Owner
within a reasonable time as would be fixed by this Hon’ble
Court.
And further may pleased to pass necessary orders to the
change the Status of the land in question from Swatwa
“Pattadar” to “Stitiban” for the interest of justice, and in
view of the settled position of law as laid down by this
Hon’ble Court.
And further may pass such other order/orders as deemed
just and proper.”
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty
bound ever pray.”
2. By a suo motu mutation case registered by the Additional
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, the land in question recorded in the
name of the petitioner No.2 under Stitiban status, was converted to
Pattadar status purportedly on the basis of the Revenue and
Disaster Management Department Circular dated 02.07.2025.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners 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
Page 2 of 4
Government circular/notification shall always be prospective. Mr.
Mishra 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:-
“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.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i)In a case between Badrinath Vrs. Government of
Tamilnadu & Others (2000) 8 SCC 395 that,
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.
(ii)In a case between State of Kerala Vrs. Puthenkavu
N.S.S. Karayogam and Another reported in (2001) 10 SCC 191
that,
Once the main impugned order is set aside any other
consequential order made pursuant to the same would
automatically become ineffective. (Para 9)
(iii)In a case between Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by LRs Vrs.
Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by LRs reported in 2005 (3) SCC
422 that,
If remand order was bad under law, then all further
proceedings consequent thereto would be non-est and have to be
necessarily set aside.
(iv)In a case between State of Punjab Vrs. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar & Others etc., reported in 2012 (51) OCR (SC) 220 that,
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.”
Page 3 of 4
4. Learned State counsel fairly submits that the petitioner’s case is
covered by the ratio decided in the cited case.
5. 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 passed in Misc. Case No.7149 of 2025 shall not be
acted upon.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Puspanjali
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 02-May-2026 16:51:49
Page 4 of 4
