JUDGMENT E.S. Indiresh, J. - In these writ petitions, the petitioners claim to be the purchaser as well as the borrower of loan from the respondent - Society challenging the order passed by the respondent Authorities entering the name of respondent Society in the revenue documents. 2. The facts in nut shell are that, the petitioner in writ petition No.66749/2010 and writ petition No.66750/2010 claims to be the borrower of loan from the respondent Society and the petitioner in writ petition Nos.66748/2010 is the purchaser of the schedule property from the said borrower as per the registered sale deed dated 02.02.2007. It is further stated that, the respondent Society has raised dispute against the petitioner - borrower on the ground of non performance of account and repayment of loan amount. In this regard, the dispute came to be allowed by the competent authority. In furtherance of the same, the said competent authority - Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Belagavi, has passed an order attaching the schedule properties pertaining to the sale deed dated 02.02.2007 and on the basis of the said order of attachment, mutation was effected by the competent Revenue Authority. It is also not in dispute that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangaluru, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the borrower in Appeal No.404/2000 dated 29.12.2000 and the said order was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.17683/2005 dated 02.08.2005. The said change of entry made in favour of the purchaser was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi and the said Revenue Authority by order dated 26.08.2009, accepted the appeal preferred by the Society and as such, directed the 3rd respondent - Deputy Tahasildar, Sadalaga, to enter the name of the Society in the mutation entries and the said order of Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, by order dated 05.08.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been preferred by the borrower (the original land owner) and the purchaser, contending that the Revenue Authorities ought not to have entered the name of the Society in the revenue records. 3. Sri. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been preferred by the borrower (the original land owner) and the purchaser, contending that the Revenue Authorities ought not to have entered the name of the Society in the revenue records. 3. Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions argued that, the schedule land has been sold by the original purchaser in favour of the purchaser (petitioner in writ petition No.66748/2010) and therefore, in terms of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act', for brevity), the Revenue Authorities ought to have given effect to enter the name of the purchaser in terms of the registered document. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director vs. State of Karnataka, by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 377 and argued that, the order passed by the competent Registrar of Co-Operative Societies attaching the property in question cannot be held as a charge under Section 100 of Transfer of Property Act and therefore, he contended that the interference of this court is necessitated to set right the illegal orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. 4. Per contra, Sri. A. S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Society argued that the Society has extended loan in favour of the petitioner in writ petition No.66749/2010 and an order has been passed by the competent Registrar attaching the property in terms of Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 dated 24.10.1998 and the said order is passed much before the registration of the sale deed and therefore, the Revenue Authorities rightly entered the name of the Society in the mutation entries. Therefore, he contended that the writ petitions requires to be dismissed in limine. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. 6. In the light of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner in writ petition No.66749/2010 and 66750/2010 are the owner of the property and loanees from the respondent Society. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. 6. In the light of submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner in writ petition No.66749/2010 and 66750/2010 are the owner of the property and loanees from the respondent Society. The said borrowers/loanees suffered an order of dispute raised by the Society and the same was confirmed by this Court in writ petition No.17683/2005 dated 02.08.2005. The order of attachment was passed on 24.10.1998. It is also not in dispute that the registered sale deed was executed on 02.02.2007 by the borrower in favour of the petitioner in writ petition No.66748/2010. 7. In the backdrop of these aspects, on carefl examination of impugned orders and taking into account the judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, though the Revenue Authorities are expected to enter the name of the persons in whose favour the conveyance has been made in terms of Section 128 of the KLR Act, however, the charge which has been created on account of the attachment order passed by the competent Registrar in a proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act has not been properly appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, while passing the order dated 26.08.2009. The said aspect ought to have been looked into vis-à-vis provisions under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. 8. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi and the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, requires to be set aside. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petitions are allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi and the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, are set aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above, so also taking into account the effect of provisions under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act R/w. Rule 43 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. iv. iii. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi, for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above, so also taking into account the effect of provisions under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act R/w. Rule 43 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. iv. Till the adjudication of the lis between the parties by the Assistant Commissioner, Chiikkodi, the Revenue Authorities are directed to maintain status- quo in respect of the mutation entries.