follow the mandatory procedure, as discussed above and thereby, the second respondent/Joint Collector interfered. But, the defect or wrong done cannot be remedied by allowing the revision, directing to delete the names of this petitioner, since the principle of natural justice was not complied by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. If, a notice in Form-VIII is published, there may be several claims or objections against mutation of the name of this petitioner. On account of failure to comply with the mandatory procedure by the fourth respondent/ Tahsildar, setting aside the same by the second respondent on the ground of non-compliance of procedure may result in future litigation. Therefore, in such case, the second respondent ought to have set-aside the order and remanded the matter to the fourth respondent directing to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Instead of doing so, the second respondent allowed the revision, setting-aside the order passed by the fourth respondent and affirmed by the third respondent. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the second respondent to issue a direction to delete the name of this petitioner while mutating the names of rival claimants is again contrary to the procedure, since Form-VIII notice was not published as mandated under Rule 19(1) of the Rules to avoid any further complications, the second respondent ought to have remanded the matter with a direction to follow the Rules by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. Thus, the second respondent/Joint Collector committed an error and in such case, this Court can interfere with such order with a view to put an end to litigation for mutation of names of the petitioner and rival claimants and other interested persons.
