Parvati Devi, wife of Shiv Nath (applicant no.1). During consolidation, mutation order was also passed. An application was moved on behalf of applicants side ... opposite party no.2. They moved application for mutation and during consolidation mutation order was passed. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel specifically referred
Tehsildar,
Bilaspur in Mutation Record Nos. 228-B of 1996 and 229-B of
1996. According to the petitioner, the mutation orders were
obtained fraudulently ... mutation order dated
07th March, 1996 and order dated 30th August, 1991. The
Collector, Rampur, dismissed all the three revision
applications by order dated 16th
then, Collector set aside that mutation order vide
order dated 24/03/1986. Thereafter, the land was again mutated in the names
of complainant Munnalal ... mutation of the said
land on their names, on which he got notice published and thereafter as per
Rule passed the mutation order in favour
dated 03/03/1985. But, the then, Collector set aside that mutation order vide
Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI
Date: 25/06/2020 ... falsely been implicated in the matter. He further submitted
that the mutation order was passed by the co-accused Dhirendra Singh, the
then Nayab Tehsildar
application was dated as 17.10.96. Sh. G.K.Batra passed the mutation order on 2nd October 1996 when the office was closed for a National ... order dated 24.09.96 was implemented at Sl. No.722, the orders dated 24.10.96 were implemented from Sl. No.723 to 727, the order dated
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
Mutation application, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, for
mutation at the name of Sagar Ali as mutation case ... evidence, the
impugned order of mutation was passed which was challenged by
Smt. Wasima Begum and ultimately, mutation order was cancelled.
Thereafter, mutation was entered
mutated the property vide order dated 10.03.1997. This mutation was challenged by certain persons. The mutation order was recalled by the applicant. This recall order ... registered at Mumbai. The mutation was initially done. However, the applicant claims that later on he recalled the impugned mutation order, when he became aware
Revenue Case No.142-A/06/1998-99
prepared a forged mutation order in the name of the then Tehsildar
Mauganj, District Rewa ... 1998-
99. He also prepared a forged mutation order in the name of the then
Tehsildar Mauganj, District Rewa and on that basis
dated
16.01.2010 seeking permission from the RDO for setting aside
the mutation orders in favour of the petitioners is behind the
back of the petitioners ... without canceling the mutation orders, the order dated
07.04.2007, could not be implemented. Therefore, the Tahsildar
vide order dated 16.01.2010 has written
