JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
[1] The Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer, Imphal West-I, passed
order dated 27.12.2005 in Mutation Case ... obtained mutation, asserting absolute rights.
[12] Though Annie Mangsatabam claimed that her brothers had knowledge of
the mutation order and that they were liable
delay of 400 days in filing a revision against the
3
mutation order dated 23.02.2013. Revenue Misc. Case No. 52 of 2014 was filed ... mutation
only from 06.05.2014 as he was present before the Sub-Deputy Collector,
Sekmai, as recorded in the first mutation order, and affixed his signature
order in the revision filed by
respondent 9 on 04.01.2018. By the said order, the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated ... recording authority for mutation and
proceedings dated 10.12.1991 were issued effecting mutation in his
name. However, in spite of the said order, the mutation
order in the revision filed by
respondent 9 on 04.01.2018. By the said order, the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated ... recording authority for mutation and
proceedings dated 10.12.1991 were issued effecting mutation in his
name. However, in spite of the said order, the mutation
order in the revision filed by
respondent 9 on 04.01.2018. By the said order, the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated ... recording authority for mutation and
proceedings dated 10.12.1991 were issued effecting mutation in his
name. However, in spite of the said order, the mutation
order in the revision filed by
respondent 9 on 04.01.2018. By the said order, the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated ... recording authority for mutation and
proceedings dated 10.12.1991 were issued effecting mutation in his
name. However, in spite of the said order, the mutation
order in the revision filed by
respondent 9 on 04.01.2018. By the said order, the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated ... recording authority for mutation and
proceedings dated 10.12.1991 were issued effecting mutation in his
name. However, in spite of the said order, the mutation
order in the revision filed by
respondent 9 on 04.01.2018. By the said order, the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated ... recording authority for mutation and
proceedings dated 10.12.1991 were issued effecting mutation in his
name. However, in spite of the said order, the mutation
order in the revision filed by
respondent 9 on 04.01.2018. By the said order, the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated ... recording authority for mutation and
proceedings dated 10.12.1991 were issued effecting mutation in his
name. However, in spite of the said order, the mutation
order in the revision filed by
respondent 9 on 04.01.2018. By the said order, the Joint Collector
dismissed the revision and confirmed the order dated ... recording authority for mutation and
proceedings dated 10.12.1991 were issued effecting mutation in his
name. However, in spite of the said order, the mutation
