- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36145 WP No. 10047 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10047 OF 2021 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. DUNDANAGOUDA S/O SRI. THIPPANAGOUDA HOSAGOUDAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.201, RATNA VILAS APARTMENT, 14TH 'A' MAIN, 8TH CROSS, H.S. PARVATI ROAD, BEHIND KAMALA NURSING HOME, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 019 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANJULA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR ANNIGERE VILLAGE, ANNIGERE TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT-582 201. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI VENKATESH CO-OPERATIVE TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED ANNIGERE VILLAGE NAVALGUND TALUK DHARWAD DISTRICT-582201. 3. THE RADDI SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA DHARWAD REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R.KHAMROZ KHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36145 WP No. 10047 of 2021 SRI. BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2024, PETITION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING REF. NO.R.T.S/VAHI-54/19-20 DATED 26.06.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AS THE SAME IS TOTALLY UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order bearing No.R.T.S./VaHi-54/19-20 dated 26.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.1. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to release the encumbrance created on the property of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.1072/2 of Annigere Village, Navalgund Taluk, Dharwad District. 2. The petitioner stood surety for a loan raised by the respondent No.2 from the respondent No.3. Due to the default - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36145 WP No. 10047 of 2021 of the respondent No.2 in repaying the loan, the respondent No.3 initiated proceedings for recovery under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 which culminated in an award dated 22.12.2001, whereby the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were held jointly and severally liable to repay a sum of Rs.58,40,000/-. The petitioner challenged this order before the appellate tribunal in Appeal in No.181/2012. The tribunal in terms of its order dated 31.10.2018 allowed the appeal in-part and remitted the case back to the Additional Registrar of Co- operative Societies for reconsideration in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 seeking release of his property. The respondent No.1 rejected the same in terms of the impugned order on the ground that the respondent No.3/society objected to it as the dispute regarding the recovery of the amount from the petitioner was not concluded. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36145 WP No. 10047 of 2021 part, it had specifically permitted the respondent No.3 to proceed against the properties of respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.3 had not taken any action against the respondent No.2. She therefore contends that the petitioner is entitled to get released his property from encumbrance. She therefore prays that the impugned order be quashed and the respondent No.1 be directed to delete the encumbrance from the revenue records. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contends that after the appeal was disposed off by the tribunal, the proceedings are still pending consideration before the Registrar. He therefore contends that liability of the petitioner is yet to be ascertained and until the same is done, the property of the petitioner cannot be released. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate also reiterated the above contentions. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36145 WP No. 10047 of 2021 Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 8. It is not in dispute that the proceeding was initiated by the respondent No.3 for recovery of certain money from the respondent No.2 and the petitioner which culminated in an award dated 22.12.2001 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.58,40,000/- from both of them. The petitioner challenged the said award before the tribunal in an appeal No.181/2012. The tribunal in terms of an order dated 31.10.2018 allowed the appeal in part and remitted the case back to the Additional Registrar to hold a fresh enquiry regarding the liability of the petitioner to repay the amount under the award as a surety after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to purforth his case. Therefore, as the matter stands, the liability of the petitioner is yet to be ascertained. As it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, the proceedings are still pending consideration before the Registrar. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.1 could not have taken any steps for release of the property of the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36145 WP No. 10047 of 2021 9. Therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the respondent No.1 warranting interference. Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed. 10. It is however, open for the petitioner to approach the Registrar seeking expedition of the proceedings before him in accordance with law and in case if the Registrar holds in favour of the petitioner, he may take necessary steps for getting his property released from the encumbrance. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42