ANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the endorsement dtd. 17/2/2021 (Annexure-K) passed by the 3rd respondent herein and the mutation entries made by respondent No.4 produced at Annexure-L to the writ petition.

(2.) The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, petitioner No.2 has purchased the property in question and petitioner No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.75/2017 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hungund, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession against petitioner No.2. The said suit came to be compromised on 8/4/2017 (Annexure-A). Thereafter, petitioner No.1 has made a representation to the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in terms of the compromise decree on 28/8/2017 and 30/8/2017. In the meanwhile, respondent No.7 Society has filed W.P.No.110441/2017 before this court challenging the compromise decree entered into between the petitioners and this Court by order dtd. 15/9/2022, allowed the writ petition in part and the compromise decree dtd. 18/3/2017 entered into between the petitioners in O.S.No.75/2017 in respect of the properties mortgaged in favour of the respondent Society was quashed and insofar as the other properties are concerned, the compromise decree was accepted. In the meanwhile, 9th and 10th respondents herein participated in the auction proceedings and purchased the schedule properties as per the sale deed dtd. 7/1/2021 from the respondent No.7 Society. Thereafter, the respondent authorities have mutated the name of respondents No.9 and 10 in the mutation entries and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, AGA for respondents No.1 to 5, Sri. C. S. Shettar, learned counsel for respondents No.8 to 10 and Sri. S. B. Hebballi, learned counsel for respondents No.6, 7 and 11.