petitioner;
(b)Receipt issued for receiving monthly installment for the plot
HIG-70, dated 16.03.2020;
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ... impugned
proceedings, dated 18.09.2020, they had by inadvertence mentioned a
wrong plot number.
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
land
was not given in the said sale deed and inadvertently wrong plot numbers
were mentioned in it. The plaintiff taking advantage of the mistake
plaintiff's said
land was recorded under several new plot numbers but
wrongly the name of the defendant no. 1 has also been
included
Plot
No.6212 in his favour but, however, in making the request to the
competent authority, there was wrong mentioning of plot number so
claimed ... plot is assigned to the petitioner and
petitioner can assemble his plots bearing Plot Nos.6213, 5746, 5645
and 5747 taking together with Plot
came to notice of the
competent authority that said plot size has been inadvertently wrongly
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 10124/2022 Page ... competent authority that the said plot size had
been inadvertently wrongly mentioned during the E-auction.
Plot A-1/60, WHS Kirti Nagar was auctioned
Commission has wrongly passed
the impugned order in relation to the execution of sale deed for plot No.14 when such plot
number does ... plot and the
District Commission has wrongly issued directions with respect to plot No.14 when no
such plot number exists in the colony, developed
description of damage or misappropriation caused or the wrongful occupation made with details of village, plot number, area, boundary, property damaged or misappropriated and market ... detail. Clause (a) requires description of damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation, details of village, plot number, area, boundary of property damaged or misappropriated and market
others, the ancestors of the petitioners. While Khata
No. 141 corresponding to Plot No. 2391 situated at Village-Ramgarh
was possessed by Nandu Munda ... petition for amendment on
08.07.1987 mentioning therein that the plot number in the application
was wrongly mentioned as 2392 instead of 2391 which was allowed
previously 578, present Kh.No.332, C.S. Plot No.
432/1272, R.S. Plot No.722, Class-Nal at present fishery,
area ... acres of land to late Sudhir Chandra Paul
with wrong khatian number, CS Plot No. and boundaries of the land, but,
no possession was handed
because of the wrong mentioning
of jamabandi no.2 in the plaint instead of jamabandi no.3. However, the plot
numbers which are mentioned ... appeal, but such correction of jamabandi of Schedule-A and Plot
number of Schedule-B is going to prejudice to the respondents, as they have
