- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42815 WP No. 32201 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 32201 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: MR. N. MUNIRAJAPPA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.40, B BLOCK, A N COMFORT, GUBBALLALA GATE, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 061. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR, TUBAGERE, DODDABALLAPURA RD, DODDABALLAPURA, KARNATAKA - 561 203. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, KAMMAVARI PETE, ALAPPANAHALLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42815 WP No. 32201 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.03.2025 OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND MAKE AN ENTRY OF THE STAY ORDER GRANTED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR IN OS NO.23/2013 IN THE RTC RECORDS OF SY.NO.35/6, MEASURING 5 ACRES SITUATED AT MARANAGARE VILLAGE, ANUGONDAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation at Annexure-A and A1 dated 13.03.2025 and make appropriate entry of the interim order granted by the Court in OS.No.23/2013 in the revenue records. 3. The representation at Annexure-A is to the effect that OS.No.23/2013 has been filed before the Civil Court asserting a share in the said land. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42815 WP No. 32201 of 2025 4. It is submitted that in the said proceedings on 18.09.2018, the Civil Court has passed an order of temporary injunction. It is further submitted that the said order passed by the Court is required to be entered in the revenue records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in OS.No.23/2013, the Civil Court has passed an order of temporary injunction and if no entry is made in the revenue records, the parties may create third party interest despite the order of injunction specifically restraining defendant No.33 from alienating the schedule property. Reliance is placed on the order in WP.No.1168/2025. 6. Perused the order passed in WP.No.1168/2025. Para Nos.5, 6 and 7 reads as follows: "5. Revenue officials declining to give effect to injunction orders on the premise that they are not parties to the suit defies logic and the fundamental principles of judicial process. In adversarial litigation, a competent civil court exercises its discretion and grants injunctions to protect rights - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42815 WP No. 32201 of 2025 and prevent illegal transactions. The duty of revenue authorities is to ensure compliance with such judicial directions, not to insist upon being arrayed as parties to the suit to fulfil their statutory obligations. Revenue records, including the Record of Rights, serve as critical documents reflecting existing legal rights, and the refusal to incorporate injunction orders merely because revenue officials were not party to the proceedings is an abdication of duty. Such reasoning not only undermines the authority of the civil courts but also paves the way for fraudulent transactions and multiplicity of litigations, which the injunction orders seek to prevent. Hence, the argument that revenue authorities must be made parties to a suit before they can act upon an injunction order is wholly untenable and contrary to established legal principles. 6. The impugned endorsement by the Tahsildar is based on a circular that has already been judicially scrutinized. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the unreported judgment of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka & Others, decided on 21.12.2020, explicitly held that an interim injunction granted by a civil court falls within the purview of Section 127(1)(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Consequently, revenue authorities are legally bound to reflect the injunction orders in the "other rights" column of the revenue records. The reasoning adopted by the Co-ordinate Bench lays emphasis the necessity on implementing court orders to prevent fraudulent transactions and further litigation. 7. In light of the principles governing injunctions and the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, it is evident that the impugned endorsement is unsustainable. Revenue authorities, as custodians of land records, are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42815 WP No. 32201 of 2025 duty-bound to comply with orders of the civil court and ensure that rights declared by judicial forums are given full effect. Failure to do so would not only amount to willful disobedience of court orders but would also encourage illegal transactions in derogation of the rights of the litigating parties." 7. In light of the above, there is an obligation on the respondent authorities to enter the orders passed by the Civil Court in 'other rights' column of the revenue records. Such entry to be made after considering the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks. The order may be considered to be a positive direction unless there are just exceptions. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR