DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. NARVADA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the orders. dated 27.11.2010 (Annexure P/7), 16.5.2011 (Annexure P/9) and 10.1.2012 (Annexure P/1). By order dated 3.7.2010 (Annexure P/ 5) the application for mutation preferred by the petitioner was accepted. Against this order an appeal was preferred and the appellate authority by order dated 27.11.2010 set aside the aforesaid order dated 3.7.2010. It is held in the appellate order that without issuing proper notices to the person interested and dependents and without issuing advertisement in this regard, the authority below has committed an error in allowing the application and granting mutation. Accordingly, the appellate authority by order dated 27.11.2010 remitted the matter back before the same authority to proceed further after hearing the parties in accordance with law. This order was put to test by the petitioner by preferring an appeal. The appellate Court by order dated 16.5.2011 (Annexure P/9) rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of the authority below. The petitioner at this stage preferred a revision which is decided by impugned order dated 10.1.2012. This Authority also upheld the orders. passed by the authority below and order dated 16.5.2011.

(2.) THE singular contention raised by Shri Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an admission of relevant facts by the other side and, therefore, the initial authority has not committed any error in passing the order dated 3.7.2010 and the appellate and revisional authorities have erred in mechanically remitting the matter back. For this purpose he placed reliance on certain portions of the orders. and applications.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.