Tahsildar must decide the representation and conduct post-monsoon land demarcation in accordance with the civil court decree.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Bemetara, to decide his representation dated 1 June 2026 in light of the compromise judgment and decree dated 19 March 2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 02-A/2016, together with the correction order dated 21 July 2023 passed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also sought demarcation of Khasra No. 1045/1 and Khasra Nos. 1109/1, 1110/1 and 1111/1 situated at Village Kobiya, and consequential correction of the revenue records.

The petitioner clarified that he was not challenging any specific order and was only seeking consideration of his pending representation within a time-bound period. The State raised no objection to the limited relief sought.

Whether the High Court should direct the Tahsildar to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 1 June 2026 in light of the civil court’s judgment and decree dated 19 March 2019.

Whether demarcation of the concerned lands should be undertaken pursuant to the decree, followed by correction of the revenue records.

The Court applied the principle governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution that, where a statutory or administrative authority has a pending representation requiring consideration, the High Court may issue a limited mandamus directing that authority to decide it in accordance with law, without adjudicating the merits itself.

It further applied the rule that a compromise decree must be implemented in accordance with law and that, where implementation requires identification and demarcation of land, consequential correction of revenue records may follow. The Court also took note of the correction order passed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Since the petitioner challenged no particular order and confined his prayer to consideration of the pending representation, and since the State had no objection to such limited relief, the Court considered it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition without retaining it for further adjudication.

The Court observed that the compromise decree required the parties’ lands to be demarcated and the revenue records to be corrected on the basis of that demarcation.

Accordingly, it directed the Tahsildar to consider the representation objectively and in accordance with law, and to conduct the required demarcation after the rainy season, in November 2026.

The Tahsildar was further directed to conduct demarcation of the relevant lands in November 2026, after completion of the rainy season, so that the revenue records could be corrected on that basis.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute.