VINODHA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the impugned order bearing No.RRT. MIS(A)5/2014-15 dtd. 27/5/2019 passed by respondent no.1, the revenue entries pertaining to the property in question has been ordered to be mutated in the name of respondent no.3. Aggrieved by the same, respondent nos.2 and 3 in the impugned proceedings have preferred this writ petition.

(2.) In the course of the arguments, both the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.3 in unison submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of reserving the liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court, if they so desire and respondent no.3 will not alienate or otherwise create third party rights over the property till then and it is further submitted orally by the learned counsel for respondent no.3 that respondent no.3 will not alienate the property for a period of one and half years from today. His submission is placed on record.

(3.) Learned HCGP appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that she has no objection to dispose of the matter on the aforementioned terms.