- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.5799 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SRI.G. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE G. GOPI DESI NAGAIAH R/AT NO.126, 2ND CROSS KGA ROAD, KODIHALLI BENGALURU 560008 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR G S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002 REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER 2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BABA SAIAB COLONY NEAR 100 FEET ROAD BENGALURU - 17 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B V MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION IN ANNX-C DATED 11.02.2025 FOR AFFECTING THE TRANSFER OF KHATHA IN FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present case presents a rather disconcerting and unfortunate state of affairs, highlighting the continued apathy of the local authorities in faithfully implementing judgments rendered by competent Civil Courts. This is not an isolated instance. In the case at hand, the petitioner, being left with no other viable remedy, was constrained to approach the Civil Court by instituting O.S.No.26135/2018. In the said suit, the petitioner sought a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, coupled with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction to mutate his name the property records. After due contest and consideration on merits, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 Civil Court, by its judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022, decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. Despite the decree attaining finality in the absence of any stay order, respondent No.2 – the Assistant Revenue Officer, has failed to give effect to the said decree. The inaction on the part of the respondent amounts to a blatant disregard of the lawful mandate of a competent Civil Court. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has, rather audaciously, submitted before this Court that the respondent-BBMP has now preferred an appeal on 13.06.2025 against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2022. On that basis, he attempts to justify the inaction of respondent No.2 in refusing to implement the decree and mutate the petitioner’s name in the revenue records in accordance with the directions issued by the Civil Court. However, this justification holds no legal merit in the absence of any interim stay of the decree passed in O.S.No.26135/2018. The act of merely filing an appeal does not in itself - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 obliterate the binding nature of the judgment rendered by the Trial Court, nor can it be cited as a valid ground to disregard a lawful decree, unless and until the appellate court has stayed its operation. 3. This Court further takes note of the timing of the appeal filed by respondent No.1 – BBMP, which appears to be an attempt to circumvent the consequences of this Court's previous order dated 10.06.2025. In that order, this Court had expressed strong disapproval of the continued non-compliance by respondent No.2 and had indicated that imposition of exemplary costs upon the said officer would be considered for his deliberate failure to act in accordance with the decree. It is evident that the BBMP’s belated filing of the appeal is a tactical move aimed at shielding the erring officer from judicial scrutiny and consequent penalties, rather than a bona fide pursuit of appellate remedy. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 4. This Court has time and again categorically held that Revenue Officers are under a statutory and legal obligation to implement judgments and decrees rendered by competent Civil Courts. They do not enjoy any discretion to withhold or defer implementation, nor can they arrogate to themselves the role of an appellate authority to sit on judgment over decrees passed by Civil Courts. In the instant case, the petitioner had instituted a comprehensive suit seeking a declaration of title and for a consequential mandatory injunction. The suit having been decreed, the Civil Court has not only declared the petitioner as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property but has also specifically directed the defendants therein to carry out the mutation of the petitioner’s name in the revenue records concerning the suit property. The relevant portion of the operative part of the judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 "ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost. It is hereby declared that plaintiff is absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property. Consequently, mandatory injunction is granted by directing the defendants to enter the name of the plaintiff with respect to Suit Schedule Property, in khatha register, maintained by them. Draw decree accordingly." 5. Upon a close and meticulous perusal of the judgment rendered by the Civil Court, which is produced at Annexure-A, this Court is constrained to record its serious displeasure at the manner in which the BBMP has conducted itself during the trial as well as post-decree. The records categorically reveal that the defendant- authorities, including the present respondents, did not adduce any rebuttal evidence during the course of trial. The suit was not contested on merits, and the decree came to be passed after evaluating the uncontroverted evidence placed by the petitioner. It is, therefore, quite - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 appalling that respondent No.2 continues to resist implementation of the decree, despite having allowed the matter to go uncontested before the Civil Court. 6. The decree, having been passed on 30.09.2022, attained finality in the absence of any interim stay . The present writ petition itself has been filed in 2025, and even during the pendency of these proceedings, respondent No.2 has exhibited an unrelenting refusal to act in accordance with the decree. Such conduct is not only grossly unfair but also undermines the rule of law and the authority of judicial determinations. 7. The submission of the respondents that an appeal has now been preferred on 13.06.2025 almost three years after the decree only reinforces the inference that the said appeal is a belated, ill-motivated, and calculated afterthought intended to delay compliance and defeat the rights of the decree-holder. In the absence of any stay order, mere filing of an appeal does not absolve the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 respondents of their statutory and legal obligation to implement the decree of the Civil Court. The petitioner, having successfully secured a decree declaring him to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property along with a direction for mutation of his name in the khatha register, is entitled to its full enforcement. The continued defiance by respondent No.2 warrants not only judicial intervention but also imposition of costs as a measure of accountability. ORDER (i) The writ petition stands allowed. (ii) Respondent No.2 – Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, is hereby directed to forthwith give effect to the decree dated 30.09.2022 passed by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.26135/2018, by mutating the name of the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule property in the relevant khatha register maintained by the BBMP. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20498 WP No. 5799 of 2025 (iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, without waiting for any further communication. (iv) Respondent No.2 is further directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards costs, payable to the High Court Advocate’s Clerks Benevolent Fund, within a period of two weeks. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 shall report compliance of the same to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. (v) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek further appropriate relief, including initiation of contempt proceedings, in the event of non-compliance of the directions issued hereinabove. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10