claimed that the plaintiff wrongly forced the defendants to
withdraw their correct application and make a wrong
application, obtained wrong mutation and got conversion
letter ... been saddled with a wrong document of title and that is why
they could not have accepted the wrong
mutation/conversion allowed by the Land
right
to show that the plaintiff is not the landlord. Wrong mutation
cannot, therefore, give the plaintiffs a right to claim a
declaration under ... land do not claim to be
pattadar of the land, wrong mutation in favour of the
purchaser does not in any way affect their legal
compensation or any benefits
which he will be getting from the wrong mutation of share of Sh.
CS-515423/16 Page ... Satpal, Smt. Premwati and Smt.
Brahma Devi due to the wrong mutation in favour of Sh. Pehlad
Singh for the share of Sh. Ram Saran
authorities, who must be aware of the provisions of the Act,
wrongly mutated the name of Ashoklal in the revenue records
as the landlord
report of co-accused Pradeep Kumar
Khare, the then Patwari wrongly mutated that land in the names of co-accused
Alam Kachhi and others. Thus ... against the appellant. Even then,
Police wrongly registered the offence against the appellant. Even, the
mutation order passed by the appellant has also been
Land
Acquisition Officer. It was submitted that somehow rather wrongly
mutation of the suit land was not changed in favour of the Irrigation
Department. Therefore
land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and a mutation was wrongly sanctioned in favour of Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents ... respondents are owners of this land. Learned counsel submitted that the wrong mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat does not confer any title
Courts below did
of
not notice the same. The land was wrongly mutated in favour of
the State of H.P. without complying with ... seeking a
of
declaration that Mutation No.410 of vestment in favour of the
State of H.P. is wrong, illegal, null and void
some of the
immovable properties mentioned in the suit had been wrongly mutated in the
names of some of the defendants. While disposing
Respondent No. I had incorporated the family settlements as well as the mutation letters in her reply affidavit. Therefore, those being part of the reply ... called upon to determine whether the Society rightly or wrongly mutated the property in the name of respondents No. I to 4. Non-production
