1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2111 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATARAMANA DEVARA TEMPLE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CAR STREET, MANGALURU - 575 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE AND TRUSTEES 1. A. BALAKRISHNA SHENOY S/O DAMODAR SHENOY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS MANAGING TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE 2. M. KIRAN PAI S/O RAGHUNATH PAI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE 3. M. SATHISH PRABHU S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE 4. K. GANESH KAMATH S/O LATE K. VITTAL KAMATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE 2 5. M. JAGANNATH KAMATH S/O M. MADHAV KAMATH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA .K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 575 001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT 2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER D.K. DISTRICT MANGALORE - 575001. 3 . THE TASHILDAR MANGALORE TALUK MANGALORE - 575001. 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K. MANGALURU MANGALURU-575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP .C.S, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2025 (ANNEXURE AG) PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION, 3 MANGALORE, D.K. (R-2 HEREIN)IN NO. CDIS/SA.KA.BU.THI/66/2024/E-413966, AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners– Temple assailing the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, produced at Annexure–AG. The petitioners have further sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider its application dated 16.01.2024 and representation dated 10.08.2024, and to carry out mutation of the petitioner’s name as absolute owner/kathedar in the record of rights pertaining to the petition schedule property. 2. The petitioners–Temple claims title over the petition schedule properties on the strength of the 4 judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos. 860/1993 and 1101/1993, which have been affirmed by this Court in RSA No.1253/2015. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of a competent civil Court having declared petitioners as the absolute owners, followed by the mandamus issued by this Court in W.P. No.14050/2024, respondent No.2 has rejected its application on the ground that the property is classified as Government land. Respondent No.2 has relied upon Government Order No. RD 408 GCF 67 dated 21.08.1968, whereby sanction was accorded in favour of the then Mangalore Municipality in respect of 34 cents of land for establishment of a Dhobi Khana, and consequently rejected the petitioners' request. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on the aforesaid civil Court decrees and the judgment of this Court in RSA No.1253/2015, contended that the Assistant Commissioner has deliberately disobeyed the binding decree of the competent civil Court and its 5 affirmation by this Court. He further relied on the order passed in W.P. No.14050/2024 to submit that respondent No.2 has acted in violation thereof also, and that such conduct amounts to gross contempt of Court. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the petitioners have an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy. It was submitted that against an order passed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the petitioners have a remedy of revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act. On that premise, it was urged that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. This Court, having taken note of the civil Court decrees in O.S. Nos. 860/1993 and 1101/1993 as well as their affirmation by this Court in RSA No.1253/2015, was inclined to pass orders on merits. However, on 28.01.2025, 6 learned Additional Advocate General sought time on the ground that instructions were required from the Deputy Commissioner, and accordingly the matter was adjourned. When the matter was again listed on 29.08.2025, despite several adjournments, learned Additional Advocate General once again sought time. The same was seriously opposed by learned counsel for the petitioners, who submitted that the authorities are clearly disobeying the binding civil Court decrees and the judgment of this Court, and therefore prayed that no further indulgence be shown. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the records, this Court finds it necessary to refer to the issues framed in O.S.No.1101/1993 and the decrees passed by the competent civil Courts in O.S. Nos. 860/1993 and 1101/1993. The issues framed in O.S.No.1101/1993 is extracted, which reads as under: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it is the owner and is in actual present possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit as alleged in the plaint? 7 2. Whether the plaintiff proves any interference as alleged in para 6 of the plaint? 3. What decree or order?" 7. The findings recorded on these issues would be also relevant and the same is extracted, which reads as under: "1. Issue No.1 :- In the affirmative. 2. Issue No.2:- In the affirmative. 3. Issue No.3:- As per the final order." 8. The said suits filed by the petitioner–Temple seeking permanent injunction and declaratory relief came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.06.2000. The operative portion of the said decrees is extracted hereinbelow: "ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant in decreed. The defendant are permanently restrained from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the suit 8 schedule property and committing trespass into the suit schedule property. No order on to costs. The original of the Judgment shall be kept in 0. S.No. 860/93 and the copy shall be kept in 0.8.1101/93." 9. On reading issue No.1 framed in O.S.No.1101/1993 it is clearly evident that the defendants questioned the title of the petitioners who were plaintiffs and the trial Court was incidentally called to examine the title of the petitioners herein. It would be apposite to extract the findings of the trial Court while answering Issue No.1 in O.S.No.1101/1993. Relevant portion is extracted, which reads as under: "12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision reported in 2000(2) K.L.J. page 27, Item No.32 Head Note 'B' A w "A written statement must contain a specific denial of every allegations of the fact made therein. Allegation of fact not specifically denied is deemed to be admitted." The said decision is applicable to the present case on hand. Hence, on perusal of Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, the contention of the Defendant Corporation in a 9 fallacious contention. Further by perusal of Ex. P15 and Ex. P16, tanks are shown being situated in S.No. 145 and S.No. 146. Further, the Ex.P31 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 which are correspondence between the Defendant Corporation and the Plaintiff Temple disclose that the tanks belongs to possessed by the plaintiff Temple. From all these documents, it is crystal clear that the Tanks are in possession of the Plaintiff Temple. Ex. P17 in the sketch which also shows the S.Nos. 141, 144, 148, 147/1, 147/2 m 147/3 is owned and pronounced by the Plaintiff Temple and it is surrounded by T.S.No. 145 and 146." The trial Court, after a detailed consideration of the evidence and submissions, has answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative, thereby holding that the petitioners/plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the disputed property. Consequently, the decree passed in O.S.No.1101/1993 stands affirmed by this Court in RSA No.1253/2015. 10. A perusal of the extracted portion reflecting the trial Court’s finding on Issue No.1 demonstrates that the Court was required to examine, albeit incidentally, the title of the plaintiffs over the property in question. The trial Court, after an exhaustive assessment of the title documents and other relevant evidence, has categorically 10 held that the plaintiffs possess a valid and enforceable title. In unequivocal terms, the Court declared Plaintiff No.1 as the absolute owner of the property, thereby resolving the ownership dispute conclusively in their favor. 11. It is equally significant to refer to the operative portion of the judgment in RSA No.1253/2015, wherein this Court, while affirming the decree rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.1101/1993, endorsed the findings regarding ownership and title. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows: "ORDER Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil judge, Mangalore in R.A.No.114/2000 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1101/1993 is restored. No order as to the costs." 12. The combined effect of the trial Court’s findings and the appellate Court’s affirmation clearly establishes the 11 petitioners/plaintiffs’ ownership rights, leaving no ambiguity regarding the title over the disputed property. 13. In view of the decree rendered in O.S. No.1101/1993, wherein the Temple was declared as the absolute owners in possession of the petition schedule property, and in light of the fact that the said decree has been affirmed by this Court in RSA No.1253/2015, it is manifest that the respondents have no locus standi to obstruct or resist the ongoing mutation proceedings. The law is well-settled that once a civil Court has conclusively adjudicated ownership and possession, such findings attain finality and are binding on all authorities, including the State. 14. The reliance placed by the State on the passing observation made by this Court that title cannot ordinarily be examined in an injunction suit and that only possessory rights are to be considered is wholly misplaced. Such a 12 remark, made in the course of dicta, cannot override the express and substantive findings of the Court regarding ownership. The fact that this Court, in RSA No.1253/2015, confirmed the decree of the trial Court in O.S. No.1101/1993 by setting aside the appellate Court’s judgment, directly reaffirms the petitioners’ absolute title over the schedule property. The detailed finding recorded on Issue No.1, as extracted supra, conclusively establishes the plaintiffs’ ownership and leaves no room for doubt. While the observation regarding injunction suits may be persuasive in its own context, it does not and cannot nullify the specific adjudication on Issue No.1, which remains binding and operative. 15. Once the title and possession of the petitioners have been conclusively determined through adjudication by the competent civil Court and subsequently affirmed by this Court, it is the legal duty of the Assistant Commissioner and other revenue authorities to give full effect to the decree. 13 They are bound in law to carry out all consequential entries in the record of rights in accordance with the Court’s pronouncement. Any attempt to disregard or contravene such binding judicial findings constitutes an act contrary to law. 16. The finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, declaring the petition properties as “State properties,” is therefore perverse, capricious, and legally untenable. It amounts to an impermissible attempt to override and nullify the decree of the civil Court. It is deeply regrettable that, despite having suffered adverse decrees in O.S. Nos. 860/1993 and 1101/1993, and an unsuccessful appeal in RSA No.1253/2015, the State, through its officers, continues to contest the petitioners’ rights. Such conduct reflects a disturbing and unacceptable trend wherein revenue authorities refuse to respect and implement binding civil Court decrees, thereby undermining the rule of law. 14 17. It is well-established that the role of the State and its officers is not adversarial once rights have been conclusively adjudicated. Instead, their obligation is to faithfully implement judicial pronouncements. In the present case, respondent No.2 has acted in gross disregard of the judicial process, going so far as to assert that possession had been handed over to the Municipality a claim that is in stark contradiction to the findings on possession recorded in O.S. Nos. 860/1993 and 1101/1993, and affirmed in RSA No.1253/2015. Notably, neither the State nor the Municipality has challenged these findings. 18. Accordingly, the impugned order represents a blatant defiance of this Court’s authority and amounts to willful disobedience of the mandamus issued in W.P. No.14050/2024. It is imperative to emphasise that the observations made by this Court regarding injunction suits cannot and do not nullify the conclusive findings recorded on Issue No.1 in O.S. No.1101/1993. The petitioners’ title 15 and possession, having been adjudicated and affirmed, remain binding and operative, leaving the respondents without any legal justification to interfere with or obstruct the mutation proceedings. 19. This Court is constrained to observe that the conduct of respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner in passing an order contrary to binding judicial decrees amounts to gross misconduct and demonstrates a serious lack of institutional discipline. When revenue officers arrogate to themselves the power to sit in judgment over civil Court decrees, it shakes public confidence in the administration of justice. This is a fit case where the concerned officer ought to be subjected to departmental enquiry for having passed an order in flagrant violation of decrees rendered by the competent civil Court and affirmed by this Court. However, this Court refrains from issuing such directions at this stage and deems it appropriate to grant the officer one opportunity to rectify his conduct by 16 implementing the decree in strict compliance with Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act. 20. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners should be relegated to avail the remedy of revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be acceded to. The existence of an alternate remedy does not bar this Court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, particularly in cases where manifest injustice is writ large. Relegating the petitioners to a revision in the present circumstances would only perpetuate the miscarriage of justice, especially when revenue authorities have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to align their actions with binding judicial determinations. It is well-settled that when a decree of a civil Court has attained finality, revenue authorities are bound to give effect to it, and any reluctance to do so not only undermines the authority of the civil Courts but also strikes at the foundation of the rule of law. Therefore, this 17 case warrants interference by this Court to prevent further abuse of process and to ensure that judicial decrees are honoured in letter and spirit. 21. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition stands allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru Sub-Division, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, produced at Annexure–AG, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith carry out mutation by entering the name of the petitioners–Temple in the Record of Rights (RTC) in both the ownership and cultivator’s columns pertaining to the petition schedule property. 18 (iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (v) In the event of failure on the part of respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner to implement the directions issued by this Court, it is open to the petitioners to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB