pertaining to Municipal Corporation record, to show that there was an
order of mutation passed in terms of the aforesaid Will Deed dated ... Digamber
Dhumal and secondly, when the Municipal Corporation passed order
dated 21.09.1994 making mutation entries in respect of the suit property in
terms
Divisional Officer corrected the
mutation entry as per order passed by the District Deputy
Registrar. In the meanwhile the appellate authority ... that order, the petitioners sought for
correction of the mutation entries and by the impugned order, the
respondent no.1 refused to direct
petitioners and
confirming the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner,
who had set aside the order dated 29 th December, 2015 passed ... order dated 29th December , 2015 and has set aside the order
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and declared that the
mutation entry
motu Review proceedings and
directed the restoration of mutation entry no.160. The order of the
review was made on the ground that the present ... quash and set aside the mutation entry
no.152 as well as order dated 28th February, 2016
passed by Tahsildar, Kurla only in relation
cause of
action arose when the Assistant Commissioner by order dated
28.04.1994 confirmed the mutation entry. The suit was filed
on 26.08.1996. In this factual ... deed of 5.5.1953, has been instituted
by taking recourse to orders passed in mutation
proceedings by the Revenue Courts.
9] The facts in the present
Divisional Officer (Rural) passed the impugned order on
07.08.2017, thereby demonstrating that the said order was
without jurisdiction.
7. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel ... present case, although setting aside of the impugned order
would be a revival of the mutation entry no. 3271 made in
favour of the petitioner
well as the issue of validity
of the mutation entry no.352 uninfluenced by the order passed by the
learned Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division ... order passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional officer and also the order passed by the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal indicates that in both the orders, oral
recorded therein. Petitioners thereafter applied for mutating their names
in the Property Register Card as lessees. By order dated 20.05.2003,
respondent No.4 - City Survey ... mtrs out of the suit
property. By orders dated 20.05.2003 and 17.07.2007, City Survey
Officer mutated names of the petitioners as lessees. Respondent
taken into consideration by the Tahsildar while making the
mutation entries.
6. The said order of the Sub Divisional Officer was
challenged by the deceased ... impugned orders has been
taken away by dismissal of the said civil suit and that,
therefore, the impugned orders whereby the mutation entries
were
This application was allowed by the trial Court by order
dated 18/08/2011. The order passed by the trial Court was
challenged ... defendant is mutated in the revenue records and this
order of mutation was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal which
came to be allowed
