PANDURANG Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, petitioners claim to be the owner in possession of schedule property mentioned at Annexure-A to the writ petition to the extent of 4800 sq.ft of Shastri Nagar, Belagavi. It is further stated that respondent No.5 is asserting his right and title in respect of the schedule property on the basis of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.509/1999 and in O.S.No.173/2002 and thereby, sale deed dtd. 28/8/2002 has been executed by the vendor of the petitioner herein-Smt.Indubai Nesarkar in favour of the 5th respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that, petitioners having acquired right and title in respect of the schedule property mentioned in the writ petition in terms of the sale deed produced at Annexure-A, the 2nd respondent instead of directing the respondent No.5 to get his right adjudicated before the competent Civil Court, has allowed the revision petition and being aggrieved by impugned order dtd. 5/3/2015, passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-G), the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Sri. D.Ravikumar Gokakakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is contrary to law as the petitioners herein have made out the case before the respondent-authorities that the 5th respondent herein has no right in respect of the subject land and despite the same, the impugned order has been passed by the 2nd respondent. He further contended that, the 2nd respondent herein ought to have directed the 5th respondent to approach the competent Civil Court for declaratory relief and despite doing so, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order, setting aside the mutation entry made on 4/2/2011, which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.