Revenue authorities must follow court-mandated demarcation procedures or seek clarification before deviating.

In W.P. No. 3308 of 2023, the High Court had set aside an order concerning an alleged encroachment and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar, directing a five-member team—two revenue officers and three Patwaris—to reconstruct the revenue map using permanent marks and then conduct demarcation.

The Naib Tehsildar subsequently made an order dated 16 February 2026, which was affirmed on 8 July 2026.

Ramniwas and another challenged those orders, contending that the demarcation did not follow the Court’s directions and had been conducted without notice to the parties.

The State and respondent No. 1 supported the proceedings, relying, among other things, on a communication issued by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement.

Whether the demarcation proceedings complied with the specific directions issued in W.P. No. 3308 of 2023

Whether the impugned demarcation orders could stand where the prescribed method was not followed, or where that method was said to be impracticable

The Court applied the principle that where a court directs that an act be performed in a particular manner, it must be performed in that manner and not by adopting a different procedure.

An authority that considers compliance with a court’s specific direction impossible must seek clarification from the court rather than depart from that direction.

No statute or separate precedent was identified as the basis of the decision.

The earlier order required the designated team to reconstruct the revenue map using permanent marks before carrying out demarcation.

The Naib Tehsildar’s order did not, on its face, show that the map had been reconstructed in that manner.

The Court held that reliance on the Commissioner’s communication or any other reason for not following the directed procedure did not authorize the respondents to adopt a different method; if compliance was not possible, they had to seek clarification from the Court.

If the official respondents considered the directed demarcation impossible, they were permitted to approach the Court for clarification or review.

The petition was disposed of.