original writ petitioner. The original writ petitioner also claimed that
mutation orders were passed in his favour. The following issues were
framed by the learned ... also
subsequent Mutation Case No. 236(ix) of 77-78 and the correction
slip dated 19.09.78 (Annexure-11), but the said mutation order
pleased to
set aside the order passed by the D.C.L.R, Rajauli, thus
restoring the order of mutation passed in favour ... passed
order for mutation of the respondent's name in Mutation Case
no.555-R-27/2018-19; (3) the order
order dated 15.06.1981, order was passed in favour of respondent no. 4 and the appeal filed by the petitioner i.e. Hukmanand Sharma against order ... fresh order dated 19.05.2008 has been passed by which earlier order dated 11.06.2007 has been set aside and a direction was issued for mutating
that the order dated 29.6.2018 was a fraudulent order as the order still appears on the website. It is contended that the mutation was also ... shall be recorded.
(8) In all cases of mutation, the Revenue Officer passing the mutation order shall specify the precise entry which
regarding
cancellation of the previous mutation by the Collector in the year 1986.
The petitioner passed the mutation order after going through the Khasra
Records ... 58759 of 2022
mutation order. Subsequently, Summa Ahirwar died and his heirs filed the
complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused persons along with
party. It was further reported that out of
connivance, the order of mutation has been passed after 83 years ignoring
the orders of the original ... letter no. 262 dated
19.07.2021 for conducting inquiry regarding wrong mutation order passed
by the respondent no. 2 directing to create jamabandi in favour
defendant No.3, the Corporation had passed the
mutation order on 15.12.2010 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is
stated before passing ... different. Therefore the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC would not be
attracted. In order to attract Order II Rule 2 CPC , it mandates
2017 issued by the 3rd respondent refusing to
implement the mutation orders/affect mutation in petitioner's favor
14. The Dy. Collector and Tahsildar ... issue to the
detriment of the petitioner and decline to mutate/implement the
mutation orders already passed in favour of the petitioner in the
pahani
these conclusions, by his order dated 25.01.1984, the Consolidation Officer accepted the objections of the petitioners, ordering them to be mutated over the land ... reversing those orders allowed the second respondent's objections. He has ordered the name of the second respondent to be mutated over the land
order dated 25.10.2012. Subsequently, an application for recall of the said order dated 25.10.2012 was moved which was also rejected by means of the order ... order dated 21.07.2016 that the application for restoration/recall was allowed and order was set aside but it was only the subsequent order by which
