HARI Vs. VIVEK PANDURANG PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 27/1/2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi (Annexure-D) as the petitioners have purchased the land in question from the father of the respondent No.1 by paying valuable consideration and it is contended that, further the Deputy Commissioner ought have mutated the name of the petitioners in terms of Sec. 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short the "Act") and being aggrieved by the order passed by the 4th respondent herein, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) Sri.Srianand A Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in terms of Sec. 128 of the Act, the mutation entry has to be made pursuant to the execution of sale deed by the father of the respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioners. He further contended that R.A.No.119/2020 is pending consideration before the 7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkodi in respect of the said land in question and therefore, he argued that the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent requires to be interfered with.

(3.) Per contra, Sri.Sharad V Magadum, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has placed on record the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6/2008 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkodi, whereby suit has been filed by the petitioners herein, seeking declaration of ownership and consequential relief of permanent injunction, which came to dismissed by judgment and decree dtd. 29/2/2020. In that view of the matter, as the competent Civil Court has declared that the petitioners herein are not the owners of the land in question and accordingly, he sought to justify the impugned order passed by the