Karnataka High Court
Sri M Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44567
WP No. 30877 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 30877 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M VENKATESH
S/O LATE. MARIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT ADDEVISHWANATHAPURA VILLAGE,
ARAKERE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
PIN-562 163.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VIJAYA P
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 009.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44567
WP No. 30877 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
YELAHANKA-560 064.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.03.2025 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the endorsement at Annexure-B whereby the respondent - Authority has rejected the plea of the petitioner to enter the proceedings in O.S.No. 1754/2024 in the revenue records on the ground that the revenue authorities are not parties in the proceedings in O.S.No. 1754/2024 where interim order is passed and petitioner was requesting entry of such interim order in the revenue records.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44567 WP No. 30877 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. 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 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:44567 WP No. 30877 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:44567 WP No. 30877 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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."
3. It is noticed that the interim order has been passed in O.S.No. 1754/2024 restraining the defendants -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44567 WP No. 30877 of 2025 HC-KAR and persons claiming under them from alienating the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the said interim order is in force.
4. In light of the observations made in W.P.No. 1168/2025 as noticed above, the endorsement at Annexure-B is set aside. Respondent No.3 is directed to take note of the interim order passed in O.S.No. 1754/2024 and take appropriate steps to make entry in "other rights" column of the RTC, in light of the discussion made above. Such entry to be made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP