- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44858 WP No. 33368 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 33368 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R VIVEKANANDA S/O LATE S.S. RUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT RAMENAHALLI TIPTUR-572 201 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL, BANGALORE-562 106 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 22.10.2025 MADE BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44858 WP No. 33368 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner submits that insofar as office objections at Sl. Nos. 2 and 3, he would delete interim prayer. Accordingly, office objection is overruled. 2. Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents. 3. Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.10.2025 at Annexure-A. In terms of the representation at Annexure-A, the petitioner submits that a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.550/2024 has been filed before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, against a private party and an interim order has been passed on 20.04.2024 restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44858 WP No. 33368 of 2025 schedule property. A copy of the order is enclosed at Annexure-E. 4. Petitioner submits that he has made a representation to the Authorities to incorporate passing of interim order in the revenue records. 5. Perused the order passed in W.P.No. 1168/2025. The observations at Paragraph Nos. 4 to 5 are extracted below: "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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44858 WP No. 33368 of 2025 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44858 WP No. 33368 of 2025 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 duty bound to comply with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44858 WP No. 33368 of 2025 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." 6. In light of the legal position as encapsulated in the observations extracted above, respondents to take note of the representation at Annexure-A and take steps for making entry of the interim order passed in O.S.No. 550/2024 in "Other Rights" column of the RTC records. Such entry to be made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP