YAMANOORAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dtd. 2/12/2021 passed by the 1st respondent (Annexure-C), accepting the revision petition filed by the contesting respondents herein.

(2.) Relevant facts for the adjudication of this case are that, the father of the respondents have filed suit in O.S.No.102/2008, before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kushtagi, seeking the relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and the said suit came to be decreed ex-parte by judgment and decree dtd. 4/3/2009 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed R.A.No.21/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge at Kushtagi and the appeal preferred by the petitioners came to be allowed by setting aside the order dtd. 4/3/2009 passed in O.S.No.102/2008. It is further stated in the writ petition that the 2nd respondent herein, by order dtd. 25/11/2019, having taken note of the orders passed by the Civil Court, directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records including the mutation entries. However, the 1st respondent herein without considering the material on record, by order dtd. 2/12/2021 (Annexure-C) passed the impugned order, and being aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

(3.) I have heard Sri Anand R.Kolli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M. H. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 and Sri. Sadiq N. Goodwala, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6 to 8 and 10.