JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocates appearing for the respective respondents in the petitions. 2. The petitions were ordered to be taken together as the points involved are common as submitted by the counsel appearing for both the parties. 3. The above Writ Petitions seek to quash the orders passed by the authorities below whereby the objections filed to the mutation in the record of rights by the petitioners came to be rejected. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has essentially raised an objection to the proceedings on the ground that the purchase certificate which has been obtained by the respondents is in the course of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar who was not appointed to perform such duties in terms of Section 2(15) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (herein after referred to as “the said Tenancy Act of 1964”). The learned counsel pointed out that as the foundation to seek such mutation entries is on the basis of an order which is passed without jurisdiction, the question of entertaining such proceedings for mutation by the Revenue Authorities does not arise. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned orders and pointed out that the authorities below have relied upon the notification of the year 1996 empowering the Mamlatdar to perform such function though according to him in the present case the orders were passed much before the said date. The learned counsel as such submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocates appearing for the respective respondents in the petitions have supported the impugned orders. The learned Addl. Government Advocates sought to contend that on the basis of the appointment of the Mamlatdar as the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, all Mamlatdars were entitled to perform the duties as provided under the said Tenancy Act of 1964. The learned counsel further pointed out that there was no objections raised by the petitioners to such proceedings and as such the orders passed essentially by consent of the petitioners cannot be unsettled on this ground as such matters are otherwise not prescribed in the Act. The learned counsel further pointed out that there was no objections raised by the petitioners to such proceedings and as such the orders passed essentially by consent of the petitioners cannot be unsettled on this ground as such matters are otherwise not prescribed in the Act. The learned counsel further pointed out that in any event, the Mamlatdars were entitled to perform such duties by virtue of their designation as Mamlatdars for the respective talukas. The counsel appearing for the respective respondents have pointed out that the matters be remanded to the learned Dy. Collector for reconsideration so as to ascertain as to whether such objections can be dealt with in the proceedings for mutation. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and I have also gone through the records. While disposing of Writ Petitions Nos.792 and 793 of 2009, this Court has taken a view that the Mamlatdar who has acted under the provisions of the said Tenancy Act of 1964 has to be appointed by the Government in terms of Section 2 (15) of the said Act. For the reasons stated in the said judgment dated 27.09.2013, I find that unless and until the Mamlatdar is so appointed, any orders by any Officer contrary thereto would be without any legal effect. 7. But however, the point for consideration in the present petition is whether in the light of the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents such objections can be raised in mutation proceedings. It is well settled that the orders passed in the proceedings for mutation do not create or defeat any title of the parties. Apart from that, it is sought to be contended that the orders were passed by consent and as such the petitioners cannot resile from such orders. This aspect would also have to be dealt with after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The Dy. Collector has essentially proceeded to consider the aspect of jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar on the basis of the notification issued in the year 1996 which has also been considered by this Court while disposing of the aforesaid Writ Petitions. The records are also obscure to ascertain as to whether there was any adjudication with regard to the claim of the respondents of tenancy prior to the purchase certificate which is the basis of the mutation proceedings. The records are also obscure to ascertain as to whether there was any adjudication with regard to the claim of the respondents of tenancy prior to the purchase certificate which is the basis of the mutation proceedings. Whether the petitioners can avail of the provisions of the Evidence Act in such mutation proceedings when they were parties to such proceedings would also have to be examined in facts of the case. The scope of the authority to determine the validity of the document produced for mutation will also have to be examined. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I find it appropriate to quash and set aside the orders passed by the learned Dy. Collector dated 27.09.2005 and remand the matters to the Dy. Collector to decide the said revisions afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The orders passed by the Dy. Collector dated 27.09.2005 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The Revision applications bearing Nos. LRC/DYCL/MUT/APPL/2/2003, 17/2003, 18/2003, 19/2003 and 20/2003 are restored to the files of the learned Dy. Collector. (iii) The learned Dy. Collector is directed to decide all the revisions applications afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iv) All contentions of both the parties are left open. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Mamlatdar on 11.11.2013 at 3.00 p.m. (vi) The Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.