RAYANAGOUDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order dated 1-6-2001 passed by the first respondent as per Annexure-D, by which mutation entry has been made in favour of respondents 2 to 5 on the basis of the compromise decree entered into between the parties in the civil Court.

(2.) THE first "ground of attack is that the said order is/ against the petitioner showing him to be dead. Secondly, it is contended that by the impugned order mutation entry has been made in the names of respondents 2 to 5 in respect of property bearing Sy. No. 110/2, when actually the said property has not fallen to their share. Thirdly, on the ground that though the right of respondents 3 to 5 to the properties in dispute is not in question, admittedly, they are not in possession of those properties and therefore their names could not have been entered in Column 12 of RTC. If only the petitioner had been served with a notice, he would have appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and would have brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner the aforesaid facts, in which event, order adverse to his interest would not have been passed. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy commissioner is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN fact, the impugned order was challenged before this Court in w. P. No. 24457 of 2001 by respondents 6 to 9. After contest, the said writ petition came to be dismissed by a considered order. The facts set out in the said order would indicate how a suit filed for partition in the order 1944 though it was decreed, in the year 1947, the plaintiffs have been kept away from property by the defendant in the said suit on some pretext or the other and therefore when finally justice has been done to them by the Deputy Commissioner, this Court declined to interfere in the said order. As petitioner in this writ petition was not party to the said writ petition, he is not bound by the said order and therefore he has preferred this writ petition and the contentions urged by him have to be considered independent of the said order.