present at the time of attestation of mutations
and he has appended his signatures on the mutation orders.
Even the father of the petitioner Dina ... time of attestation of mutation No. 225 dated 17.12.1981 and
his signatures are also appearing on the mutation order. It is
correct that Sh. Parmanand
present at the time of attestation of mutations
and he has appended his signatures on the mutation orders.
Even the father of the petitioner Dina ... time of attestation of mutation No. 225 dated 17.12.1981 and
his signatures are also appearing on the mutation order. It is
correct that Sh. Parmanand
present at the time of attestation of mutations
and he has appended his signatures on the mutation orders.
Even the father of the petitioner Dina ... time of attestation of mutation No. 225 dated 17.12.1981 and
his signatures are also appearing on the mutation order. It is
correct that Sh. Parmanand
present at the time of attestation of mutations
and he has appended his signatures on the mutation orders.
Even the father of the petitioner Dina ... time of attestation of mutation No. 225 dated 17.12.1981 and
his signatures are also appearing on the mutation order. It is
correct that Sh. Parmanand
Standing Order 23-A. Vide order dated 19.01.2020, respondent No.1 has
corrected its order dated 10.07.2019 by making the said order subject to
outcome ... terms of impugned order dated 10.07.2019
read with order dated 29.01.2020, accepted the recommendation of
respondent No.2 and set aside mutation No.390 dated
2018 1|Page
Judge challenging order dated 31.12.2014 passed by respondent No.3
herein whereby orders passed on mutation Nos.383 and 608 of Estate ... Commissioner, Revenue, the
said order had already been implemented by the Tehsildar concerned
by passing a fresh order of mutation on 13/15-01/2015
whereby,
in an appeal filed by respondent No.3 against the Mutation order No. 177
dated 14.08.1986 and Mutation order No.258 dated 27.03.20, respondent ... 2019
2 It is the case of the petitioner that Mutation order No. 177 dated
14.08.1986 under Section 4 of Agrarian Reforms
Vide its
order dated 31.10.2017, respondent No.1, while upholding the order
regarding setting aside of aforesaid mutation orders, dismissed the revision
petition ... while passing the impugned order, has failed to notice that in the
order dated 20.08.1989 whereunder the Mutating Officer has attested the
mutation under Section
said order was
affirmed by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu as well.
3. According to the petitioners, the impugned order whereby
the aforesaid mutation attested in favour ... Mutation
Order was passed by the competent authority. It is also not
in dispute that by virtue of the impugned order, aforesaid
Mutation Order
passed a general order thereby cancelling as many as 57
Mutation Orders including the aforesaid Mutation Orders attested
in favour of the petitioners without issuing ... land in question in favour of the petitioners and the
said Mutation Orders were passed by the competent authority i.e.
concerned Tehsildar
