In a partition deed Schedule A alloted to party-1 and schedule B to party-2 whereas schedule C was declared as joint property which is to be partitioned later equally but at the last page schedule C was strike off by party 1 before registration where as the contents remained as it was. After three decades same schedule C was acquired by national highways. During preparation of award sons of party 2 claimed to the sons of party 1 that their names should be also there in the award and the sons of party 1 didn't objected their names to be added in the award as they were not aware of the strike off in the partition deed as the original deed was in the custody of the sons of party 2. Also they filed writ petition for enhancement of compensation jointly.Later after disbursement of compensation in the joint account of party 1 and 2 somehow party 1 got the xerox of partition deed and found that strike off. Party 1 objected to the competent authority of land acquisition. After proper verification and Hearing proceeding competent authority recover back the compansation amount and paid entirely to party-1 sons. After that sons of party 2 filed writ in the high court. What will happen???

In the scenario you presented, several legal issues are involved, including the validity of the partition deed, the subsequent acquisition of Schedule C by the national highways authority, the distribution of compensation, and the writ petition filed by the sons of party 2 in the high court.

1. Validity of the Partition Deed:
The strike-off of Schedule C by party 1 before registration raises questions about the validity and enforceability of the partition deed. If party 1 unilaterally made changes to the deed without the consent of party 2, this could affect the rights and interests of both parties. The sons of party 2 claiming their entitlement to the property indicates a dispute over the ownership and partition of Schedule C.

2. Acquisition of Schedule C by National Highways Authority:
The subsequent acquisition of Schedule C by national highways raises concerns about the legal status of the property and its impact on the partition deed. The acquisition by a government authority could supersede any private arrangements or agreements related to the property, leading to complications in the distribution of compensation.

3. Distribution of Compensation:
The dispute arising from the distribution of compensation between party 1 and party 2, compounded by the discovery of the strike-off in the partition deed, resulted in the competent authority recovering the compensation amount and paying it entirely to party 1's sons. The actions taken by the authority suggest an acknowledgment of the discrepancy in the partition deed and a corrective measure to rectify the distribution of compensation.

4. Writ Petition in High Court:
The sons of party 2 filing a writ petition in the high court indicates their dissatisfaction with the decision of the competent authority to recover and redistribute the compensation to party 1's sons. The high court will have to examine the legal merits of the case, including the validity of the partition deed, the rights of both parties over Schedule C, and the proper distribution of compensation.

In conclusion, the outcome of the writ petition filed by the sons of party 2 in the high court will depend on the evidence presented, the legal arguments made, and the interpretation of relevant laws and regulations governing property rights, partition deeds, and compensation in land acquisition cases. It is advisable for both parties to seek legal representation to navigate this complex legal situation effectively.