- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2210 WP No. 106054 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106054 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MOULALI S/O. RAJESAB NADAF, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKALAKI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-586113. 2. ABDUL S/O. RAJESAB NADAF, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKALAKI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-586113. 3. RAFIK S/O. HAJISAB NADAF AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKALAKI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-586113. 4. MAHIBOOB S/O. HAJISAB NADAF AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKALAKI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-586113. 5. IQBAL S/O. HAJISAB NADAF, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKALAKI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-586113. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, JAMKHANDI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. R GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2210 WP No. 106054 of 2024 3. SMT. NOORJAHAN W/O. YAMANOORSAB @ YAMANAPPA PINJAR @ NADAF, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDDAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587112. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R2; NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE TAHASILDAR OR OTHER REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO MAKE ENTRIES IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS REGARDING ORDERS OF INJUNCTION, STAY ETC, GRANTED BY CIVIL COURTS IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE COURT CONCERNED IN THAT REGARD; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO DELETE THE ENTRY IN THE STYLE ‘COURT STAY AS PER ORDER NUMBER OS NO.132/2023 DATED 11.01.2024 12.00 AM, MADE IN COLUMN NO.11 OF THE RECORD OF RIGHTS PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURES-E TO E7, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Declare that the Tahasildar or other revenue authorities are not empowered to make entries in the record of rights regarding orders of injunction, stay etc, granted by civil courts in respect of immovable properties in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2210 WP No. 106054 of 2024 the absence of a specific direction from the court concerned in that regard; b) issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 03.02.2024 issued by the respondent no.2 vide Annexure-G in the interest of justice and equity; c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to delete the entry in the style ‘court stay as per order number OS No.132/2023 dated 11.01.2024 12.00 am, made in column No.11 of the record of rights produced vide Annexures-E TO E7, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners are before this Court, aggrieved by the entry of the interim order of injunction passed in O.S.No.132/2023, dated 11/01/2024 in column No.11 of the RTC. 3. The submission of Sri.Girish Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that, without a specific order of the Trial Court, no such entry can be made in column No.11 and in this regard, he relies upon Sections 127 and 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 (‘the KLR Act’, for short) and submits that, in terms of Sections 127 and 128 of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2210 WP No. 106054 of 2024 KLR Act, no entry of an order of injunction can be made in the record of rights without a specific order of the Court. 4. Heard Sri. Girish Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. V. S. Kalasurmath, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and perused the papers. 5. A perusal of Sections 127 and 128 of the KLR Act, would only indicate that it provides for the entries to be made on an application made by any of the parties. The same does not relate specifically to any order passed by a court of law. 6. What would be applicable is Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘the TP Act’, for short) which deals with lis pendens. 7. In terms of Section 52 of the TP Act, any transaction while suit is pending will be subject to the suit, where the title or rights in the property are in issue. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2210 WP No. 106054 of 2024 8. It is in furtherance of Section 52 of the TP act that there would be requirement for the Court to maintain an independent lis pendens register so as to enable any person to verify if any litigation is pending so as not to enter into any transaction as regards a property subject matter of litigation. 9. It is in that view of the matter that the software implemented by the State for the registration of the documents in terms of “Kaveri” and the software implemented for maintenance of revenue documents relating to properties named “Bhoomi”, has been developed by the State. The said software of both Kaveri and Bhoomi now had been integrated with the Court Case Information System (CIS) and any order passed by a Court is entered into both Kaveri and Bhoomi, so as to prevent unnecessary litigation and transactions concerning properties, which are the subject matter of litigation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2210 WP No. 106054 of 2024 10. The entry made in the present matter in column No.11 is in pursuance of Section 52 of the T.P.Act, dealing with lis pendens and constitutes a lis pendens register. 11. As such, as there is no dispute that there is an order of injunction passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, in O.S.No.132/2023, the said order having been entered in column No.11, I do not find any infirmity in the said entry. Sections 127 and 128 of the KLR Act, relied upon by the learned counsel Sri.Girish Yadwad, would not be applicable to the present case. Needless to say, in the event of the interim order being vacated or modified, the same would automatically get reflected in column No.11 of the RTC, with a further entry being made that the interim order has been so vacated or modified, the reference to the suit will however remain in Column No. 11 of the RTC. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2210 WP No. 106054 of 2024 12. No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18