Pending civil suits do not bar phodi or durasth, subject to their outcome.

The petitioner sought a direction requiring the revenue authorities to consider his representations and restrain the Assistant Director of Land Records from conducting phodi and durasth in respect of the disputed land.

The petitioner had filed O.S. No. 33/2023, challenging registered sale deeds concerning that land in favour of respondent No. 7; the suit remained pending.

His application for temporary injunction in the suit had been dismissed, and that dismissal had attained finality.

The petitioner relied on a prior order concerning the land and a decision of the High Court in W.P. No. 39382/2025.

Respondent No. 7 disputed the petitioner’s possession, while the State submitted that the petitioner could not seek a negative writ preventing the authorities from performing their functions.

1. Whether the High Court should direct the revenue authorities not to conduct phodi and durasth over the disputed land while the civil suit challenging the sale deeds remains pending

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to such relief where his application for temporary injunction had been dismissed and the dismissal had attained finality

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the principle that it should not issue a direction preventing public authorities from performing their public duties in the circumstances of this case.

It further held that any phodi and durasth conducted by the authorities would remain subject to the result of the pending civil suit.

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s cited decision, W.P. No. 39382/2025, as inapplicable to the facts before it.

The Court declined to restrain the authorities because the petitioner was not in possession of the land, and the civil court’s dismissal of his application for temporary injunction had attained finality.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to prevent the authorities from carrying out phodi and durasth as part of their public duties.

It protected the parties’ positions by making any such proceedings subject to the outcome of O.S. No. 33/2023 and found the cited decision distinguishable.

It did not prohibit phodi or durasth; any such exercise by the authorities would be subject to the result of O.S. No. 33/2023.