1. In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged order dated 23/2/2017 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) and order dated 27/1/2012 (Annexure-B) passed by the 2nd respondent, dismissing the claim made by the petitioners.

2. I have heard Smt.Sunita S Hosur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.A.L.Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Vinayak S Kulkarni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that mutation entry was effected based on survival certificate issued by respondent No.4 and registered relinquishment deed dated 17/1/2011 executed between the parties and therefore, deletion of name of the petitioners from the revenue records by the revenue authorities is without jurisdiction and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on carefully examination of the impugned orders particularly Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent would indicate that though the petitioners have entered appearance, however, they have not argued in the matter nor contested the matter on merits. I have carefully examined the findings recorded by Court below, wherein the disputed question of facts are required to be adjudicated with regard to the title of the property in question and In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the respondent-authorities. However, if the petitioners are being aggrieved by the impugned action made by the revenue authorities for deletion of their names from the revenue records, petitioner are directed to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their rights over the property in question.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.