PRAMILAVVA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 4/3/2021 (Annexure-F), passed by the respondent No.1 and order dtd. 7/6/2017, passed by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-A).

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that properties in question are the ancestral properties of both the petitioners and the respondent Nos.4 to 19 and as such, petitioners have questioned the entries made in the revenue records. In this regard, petitioners have approached the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent, by order dtd. 7/6/2017, set aside the entries made in revenue records No.233/12-13 (Annexure-A). Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioners have approached the 1st respondent in Revision Petition No.4/2018-2019. The 1st respondent, after considering the material on record, has come to the conclusion that the entries in the mutation register has been made in terms of the registered partition deed and In that view of the matter, Revision Petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, petitioners have presented this writ petition.