application for mutation and also claimed
mutation in their name, but the Circle Officer, Chandil did not
consider their prayer and allowed mutation in favour ... order in the light of the documents of the
plaintiffs. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed by the Circle Officer,
Chandil and the mutation
application for mutation and also claimed
mutation in their name, but the Circle Officer, Chandil did not
consider their prayer and allowed mutation in favour ... order in the light of the documents of the
plaintiffs. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed by the Circle Officer,
Chandil and the mutation
application for mutation and also claimed
mutation in their name, but the Circle Officer, Chandil did not
consider their prayer and allowed mutation in favour ... order in the light of the documents of the
plaintiffs. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed by the Circle Officer,
Chandil and the mutation
application for mutation and also claimed
mutation in their name, but the Circle Officer, Chandil did not
consider their prayer and allowed mutation in favour ... order in the light of the documents of the
plaintiffs. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed by the Circle Officer,
Chandil and the mutation
from the revenue authorities. However,
an initial clerical omission in the mutation order resulted in only
Khasra No. 2600 (Khata No. 1818) being mentioned, despite ... already
set aside the said mutation order and also noted about the
Patna High Court
even as per the best case of the respondents, in the mutation order, it has
been recorded that Lekh Ram-appellant No.1 had given ... favour of respondent No.2. It is submitted that even the
mutation order is illegal and has been passed during the pendency of the
appeal
Counsel further submits that mutation in
favour of Kamal Singh was not a simple mutation, it was based upon order of
Revenue Court under Section ... noted that order dated
18.07.1991 of mutation in favour of deceased Kamal Singh is not a simple
mutation order. He had applied for declaring
mutated into the name of Lingareddy, but his name
was once again mutated in the revenue records pursuant to the
regrant order dated 25.07.1987 passed ... Court that the name of the plaintiff is mutated in the
revenue records vide mutation order dated 24.12.1988 in
MR No.15/1988
when she sought for mutation of her name after the death of Late
Taranath Saikia and when the mutation order was issued stating inter alia ... name of
the Plaintiff No.9 was mutated, it cannot be presumed that in the mutation
order the name of the Defendant
mutated into the name of Lingareddy, but his name
was once again mutated in the revenue records pursuant to the
regrant order dated 25.07.1987 passed ... Court that the name of the plaintiff is mutated in the
revenue records vide mutation order dated 24.12.1988 in
MR No.15/1988
