IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 26469 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MUNIRAJU M S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT MUGALURU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURYA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SIJI MALAYIL., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Location: HIGH COURT OF REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 562 106

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 009 … 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 IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03-03-2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-K), AND TO FORTHWITH IMPLEMENT THE INTERIM ORDER OF INJUNCTION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, IN O.S. NO. 1076/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY INCORPORATING THE SAME IN THE OTHER RIGHTS COLUMN OF THE RELEVANT REVENUE RECORDS DATED 06.01.2021 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

Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and act upon the representation dated 03.03.2025.

2. In terms of the representation at Annexure-K, the petitioner submits that he is the owner to an extent of 5 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 127/1 of Mugaluru Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. It is stated that there were certain civil disputes between the petitioner and other persons in O.S.No. 1076/2014. It is further submitted that the pendency of proceedings in O.S.No. 1076/2014 was requested to be entered in the revenue records in light of the defendants in the said suit making efforts, to alienate the property and create third party rights. Petitioner however submits that in O.S.No. 1076/2014, the Court had allowed I.A.No.8 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and the defendants in the said suit are restrained from alienating or from encumbering the suit schedule property.

3. Reliance is placed on the order passed in W.P.No. 1168/2025 to contend that the Co-ordinate Bench had considered the aspect of entry of judicial proceedings in revenue records and held that even if the Revenue Authorities or State are not parties to the said proceedings, there is an obligation to make entry of the proceedings of the Court in RTC.

4. The observations of the Court in Para Nos. 5 to

7 are 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 compe