patta executed in their favour. The aforesaid order was a common order, ordering mutation in favour of the different applicants for mutation, relatives ... said order and they accepted in evidence a true copy of that order, without asking for a certified copy.
A perusal of the order
view of this the mutation could not have been
denied and in that view of the matter, petitioner passed mutation order.
Learned counsel ... judicial capacity, the said order
passed in mutation cases was amenable in appeal. Moreover, the
mutation order passed basing on the possession and the mutation
patta executed in his favour. The aforesaid order was a common order, ordering mutation in favour of the different applicants for mutation, relatives ... possible to mutate the petitioner's name over the land in dispute, on the strength of the mutation order. It has then been observed
petition against such orders is not entertained.
7. The question of the maintainability of a writ petition against orders passed in mutation proceedings has come ... that:
(i) mutation proceedings are summary in nature wherein title of the parties over the land involved is not decided;
(ii) mutation order or revenue
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
wherein it has been held that an order passed in mutation proceedings and evidence relied on in mutation proceedings could not be relied upon before ... case of the petitioners herein it is apparent that orders passed in mutation proceedings by the Tehsildar were alone considered by the Consolidation Officer
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
that objection,
proceedings of review of order dated 14.10.1999 have been initiated and
the order of mutation passed earlier has been reviewed. The application ... order, Revenue record was again recorrected vide order dated
10.09.2002. Said order was challenged before appropriate authorities ie
Board of Revenue and vide its order
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
