- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46048 WP No. 31829 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 31829 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: C. JAYARAJ SON OF LATE CHIKKANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.15, 26TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 069 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.R. KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK THE TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE NEAR ANEKAL BUS STAND ANEKAL - 562 106 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR BASAVANAGUDI REGISTRATION DISTRICT DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE NEW BMTC BILDING GROUND FLOOR SRI VIDYANAGARA HOSAKEREHALLI BENGALURU - 560 085 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46048 WP No. 31829 of 2025 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR ANEKAL TALUK ATTIBELE, NO.430 ANNA BUILDING HENNAGARA GATE BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU 560 0105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/ REQUESTS DATED 06.06.2025 AND 28.07.2025 (ANNEXURES A, B, C AND D) AND TO EFFECT THE ENTRY OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PASSED IN O.S. NO.984 OF 2024 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANEKAL IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, IN THE REVENUE DOCUMENTS AND IN THE ENCUMBRANCE RECORDS PERTAINING THERETO. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46048 WP No. 31829 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for the respondents. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representations dated 06.06.2025 and 28.07.2025 enclosed at Annexures-A and B and to effect entry of ex-parte order of temporary injunction passed in O.S.No.984/2024, in the revenue records. 2. It is the case made out by the petitioner that there are certain civil disputes with the private party and in connection with such dispute, O.S.No.984/2024 has been filed seeking for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 08.09.2021. It is stated that in the course of such proceedings, order has been passed on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, whereby the defendant in the said suit has been restrained by an order of ex-parte temporary injunction from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property till further orders. It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46048 WP No. 31829 of 2025 restraining the defendant may be entered in the "Other Rights" column of the RTC. 4. Perused the order passed in W.P.No.31814/2025. The observations at paragraph No.4 are extracted below: "4. Perused the order passed in W.P.No. 1168/2025. The relevant observations at Paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 are extracted as follows: "4. The principles governing the grant of injunctions, particularly in cases of "not to alienate" orders, are well-settled in law. The purpose of such an injunction is to prevent the creation of third-party interests and to ensure that the rights of the parties to the suit are preserved pending adjudication. An injunction restraining alienation serves to maintain the status quo, preventing unscrupulous parties from frustrating the decree that may ultimately be passed in the suit. The civil courts, while exercising their jurisdiction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, grant such reliefs to prevent irreparable injury, multiplicity of proceedings, and the possibility of third parties getting entangled in prolonged litigation due to unlawful alienation. It is, therefore, imperative that revenue authorities acknowledge and implement such orders to uphold the rule of law. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46048 WP No. 31829 of 2025 injunctions to protect rights 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 fulfill 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46048 WP No. 31829 of 2025 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 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." 5. In light of the said position of law as encapsulated in the observations extracted above, respondent No.1 is directed to take necessary steps to incorporate the order of injunction passed in O.S.No.984/2024 in 'Other Rights' column of Revenue Records in respect of Survey No.47 of Lakshmipura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru measuring to an extent of 9 acres 9 guntas. Such an entry to be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8