consequential order of mutation dated
13.1.98 based on the above will sanctioned by the Tehsildar
vide Mutation order no.3025 in favour of the defendants ... reliefs as prayed in the plaint is for cancellation of the mutation order of
the authorities dated 13.1.1998 on the basis of which lands
wherein it has been held that an order passed in mutation proceedings and evidence relied on in mutation proceedings could not be relied upon before ... case of the petitioners herein it is apparent that orders passed in mutation proceedings by the Tehsildar were alone considered by the Consolidation Officer
revision by order dated 20.1.2005.
4. It is the case set up by the petitioner that the order passed on the mutation proceedings filed ... that:
(i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided;
(ii) mutation order or revenue
respondents. The Naib Tahsildar vide his order dated 22.7.2000 set aside the order dated 30.5.2000 and restored the mutation application. An appeal was filed ... from an order passed under Section 200 ex-parte or by default. The order dated 30.5.2000 of the Naib Tahsildar allowing the mutation
orders passed in the said proceedings are always subject to adjudication by the competent Court and therefore a writ petition against an order in mutation ... competent Court."
35. The settled legal position that orders of mutation are passed on the basis of possession and since no substantive rights
other sisters and of her mother and managed to obtain mutation order in her favour. She was in lookout to find a buyer ... dispute on 19th September, 1995 to the present appellant. The mutation order dated 16th March, 1993 was kept in secret from her mother and sisters
petitioner No.2. On the basis of
said gift deed, the mutation order was passed in favour of petitioner
No.2 and, accordingly, the revenue ... mutated in the
revenue records.
4. After the mutation, the petitioner No.2 filed an application for
Batankan and by order dated 10.1.2005 Batankan
Cuttack - opp. party no. 2 against
the order dated 12.10.1989 (although no such order existed in
the Mutation Case No. 495 of 1985). The said ... Collector in the impugned order has
committed an error of record by holding that the order passed in
Mutation Appeal
changed from Sarpanch to Tehsildar, the Tehsildar vide his order dated 28.7.76 ordered the mutation in favour of the present petitioner Dheer Singh. This order ... been set aside vide order dated 22.7.75 by the Appellate Authority and subsequently vide order dated 28.7.76, the mutation entry was made in favour
know that an
8
O S No.10287/2015
order of mutation order was passed by the Tahasildar
without their notice . The plaintiffs have challenged ... revenue records were mutated
into the name of defendant No.2 H.A.Somashekar as
per the mutation order marked at Ex.D-6. Based
