three years from the date of
passing the impugned mutation Ex.P5 and order Ex.D2 despite the
fact that the plaintiffs ... further
their appeal against the order sanctioning the mutation was also dismissed vide
order dated 23.07.1974 Ex.D2. Further, it was not a suit
sanctioned mutation in favour of defendant No.1 alone. An appeal was
preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the said mutation order and the same ... plaintiffs approached the revenue officials for
entering and sanctioning of mutation as per orders dated 26.09.1998 and
08.10.2003, it has come to the notice
said partition order, symbolic possession of the
disputed land has already been delivered to defendant Sarwan
Kumar by the court orders and mutation has also
also not in
dispute that on the basis of abovesaid order dated 04.07.2013, mutation
No.5061 had been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs ... plaintiffs for permanent injunction was
based on the abovesaid order dated 04.07.2013 and mutation was sanctioned on
the basis thereof. It has also gone uncontroverted
revenue record and proceedings were
pending. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of plaintiff in view of order of
learned Commissioner, Faridkot dated 19.11.1998. The plaintiff ... Kartar Singh was owner to
the extent of ¼ share and vide mutation regarding inheritance
of Santo Singh he inherited ¼ share of Santo Singh alongwith
Jangir
suit for declaration,
whereby they have challenged mutation No. 2226 dated 3.4.2012, is based
on the order of Settlement Officer, Sangrur, in case No. 1345
Consolidation Officer, vide his order dated 10.8.2016.
It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 5.2.2007, the suit land was
given ... mutation Ex. P2 shows that the appellants were
recorded owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of
order dated 05.02.2007 passed
against the order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby
application moved by defendant No.3-petitioner Gram Panchayat under Order
7 Rule ... been caused
to the petitioner, by passing the impugned order. It is so said because mutation
No.81 dated 08.05.1964, which is subject matter
Piara
Singh, mutation of inheritance bearing No.4438 was entered and sanctioned
in her favour, in compliance of the order dated 30.05.2012 passed ... sanctioning the mutation of
inheritance and the mutation was sanctioned in favour of Smt.Balbir Kaur
alone. Plaintiff-appellant contested the said mutation No.4438
6110 of 2015 -7-
9. Whether the mutation No.620 is also illegal, null and void?
OPD
10. Whether the suit is not maintainable ... present form?
OPD
11. Relief.
In order to prove their respective pleaded cases, both the parties
produced their documentary as well as oral evidence. After
