- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1287 WP No. 202646 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.202646 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: VENKAT S/O PANDARI GOPANE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KOTMAL, TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR, NOW AT: AURAD SHAJANI, TQ: NEELANGA, DIST: LATUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE). …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/P BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR, BIDAR DISTRICT-585401. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR DISTRICT-585419. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, HULSUR TQ: HULSUR, DIST: BIDAR-585401. Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1287 WP No. 202646 of 2024 5. SANDEEP S/O RAMESH GOPANE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SHAJANI AURAD, TQ: NEELANGA, DIST: LATUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE) 6. A) PANDHARI S/O GYANOBA GOPANE DIED PER LRS SUGALABAI W/O LATE PANDHARI GOPANE, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KOTMAL, TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR, NOW AT AURAD SHAJANI, TQ: NEELANGA, DIST: LATUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE)-413512. B) MOHAN S/O LATE PANDHARI GOPANE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KOTMAL, TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR, NOW AT AURAD SHAJANI, TQ: NEELANGA, DIST: LATUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE)-413512. C) CHANDRAKALA W/O SUNILKADAM, (D/O LATE PANDHARI GOPANE), AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O KOTMAL, TQ: BASAVAKALYAN, DIST: BIDAR, NOW AT AURAD SHAJANI, TQ: NEELANGA, DIST: LATUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE)-413512. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; V/O DATED 25.02.2025, NOTICE TO R5 AND R6(A) TO R6(C) IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI/ORDER/DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1287 WP No. 202646 of 2024 ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN FILE NO.REV/APPEAL/RP-118/2023-24 DATED 16-04-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ORDER PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN FILE NO.REV/DISPUTE/CR-26/2021-22 DATED 18-05-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order passed by respondent No.4 bearing No.Rev/Dispute/Cr-26/2021-22 dated 18.05.2022, by which the name of respondent No.5 was ordered to be entered in the revenue records relating to the land bearing Sy.No.78/6 of Kotmal village, Hulsoor Taluk and Bidar District. The petitioner has also challenged an order passed by respondent No.2 upholding the order passed by respondent No.4 in case No.Rev/Appeal/RP- 118/2023-24 dated 16.04.2024. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1287 WP No. 202646 of 2024 2. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.117/2021 for partition and separate possession of his share in the land bearing Sy.No.78/6 of Kotmal village, Bidar District. An application was filed by him in the said suit for an order of injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating or encumbering or transferring the aforesaid property pending consideration of the suit. The Trial Court passed an order dated 20.09.2022 restraining defendant Nos.1 and 7 from alienating or encumbering or transferring the suit schedule property. Despite the order of injunction, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 in the suit, sold the suit property to defendant No.7 therein in terms of a sale deed dated 27.09.2021. 3. Defendant No.7 in the suit filed an application for transfer of Khata of the aforesaid land based on the sale deed referred above. Respondent No.4 held proceedings and in terms of an order dated 18.05.2022, ordered the name of respondent No.5/defendant No.7 to be entered in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1287 WP No. 202646 of 2024 same, the petitioner challenged it in an appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act of 1964’) before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 in terms of its order dated 17.11.2022, set aside the order passed by respondent No.4 and directed that the order of injunction granted in the suit in O.S.No.117/2021 be entered in column number 11 of the RTC. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 filed a revision petition before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in terms of his order dated 16.04.2024, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 and restored the order passed by respondent No.4 and directed the order of injunction granted in O.S.No.117/2021 to be entered in column number 11 of RTC. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Trial Court had granted an order of injunction, there could be no alienation in respect of the land in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1287 WP No. 202646 of 2024 question. He therefore contends that respondent No.4 was bound to fall in line and comply the order of injunction and he should not have entertained the request of respondent No.5 for entering his name in the revenue records. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, who represents respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that even though there was an order of injunction not to alienate the property, but the property was conveyed to respondent No.5 prior to the order of injunction. Therefore respondent No.4 was bound in law to transfer the revenue records to the name of respondent No.5. He submits that though respondent No.3 had set aside the order passed by respondent No.4, had directed the order of injunction granted in the civil suit to be entered in Column No.11 of the RTC. He submits that respondent No.2 taking into account the transaction already brought about in the name of respondent No.5 restored the order passed by respondent No.4 and at the same time, directed the order of injunction granted in O.S.No.117/2021 to be entered in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1287 WP No. 202646 of 2024 Column No.11. He submits that in view of Sections 128 and 129 of the Act, 1964, respondent No.4 was bound to enter the name of the person in whose name the property was conveyed. Thus, he contends that the impugned order is just and proper and the interest of the petitioner is also taken care of by ensuring that there is no further transaction in respect of the property in question. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that even prior to the grant of interim order in O.S.No.117/2021, the property was transferred to respondent No.5 herein. The order of injunction was to restrain the defendant Nos.1 and 7 in the suit from alienating or encumbering or transferring the suit schedule property. Therefore, there was no embargo for the revenue authorities to enter the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1287 WP No. 202646 of 2024 therefore carefully considered the case and have rightly ordered to enter the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records. They also ensured the protection of the interest of the petitioner by directing the particulars of the suit as well as the injunction granted therein to be entered in Column No.11 of the RTC. I do not see any error in the order passed by respondent Nos.4 and 2 warranting interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RSP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32 CT:SI