Tahsildar Must Enter Names in Revenue Records in Accordance With Survey Report and DDLR Order

Petitioner No. 1 claimed to have purchased 2 acres 3 cents in Survey No. 1073/1A, and Petitioner No. 2’s deceased husband claimed to have purchased 3 acres 6 cents in the same survey number, under registered sale deeds dated 11 June 2002. Their names were entered in the record of rights; the lands were later re-numbered as Survey Nos. 1073/1/A1 and 1073/1/A2, respectively.

In 2011, the Technical Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Director of Land Records set aside the subdivisions and directed fresh measurement and subdivision.

Following the petitioners’ representations, a survey was conducted and a phodi map prepared. The Assistant Director of Land Records reported the survey details and measurement information to the revenue authorities, but the Tahasildar did not act on the report or representations.

The petitioners sought mandamus directing the authorities to consider their representations and make the corresponding revenue entries.

1. Whether the Tahasildar’s failure to act on the survey report and related communications, after the survey was conducted pursuant to the 2011 order, warranted a direction to enter the petitioners’ names in the revenue records.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to time-bound relief directing the Tahasildar to make those entries in accordance with the report forwarded by the Assistant Director of Land Records.

The Court did not identify or discuss any specific statutory provision, precedent, or detailed legal test.

It granted relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, directing the Tahasildar to act in accordance with the prior order of the Deputy Director of Land Records and the report forwarded by the Assistant Director of Land Records.

The Court noted that the 2011 order required fresh measurement and subdivision, that the survey had subsequently been conducted, and that the resulting report and measurement details had been forwarded to the Tahasildar.

As the Tahasildar had taken no action despite those communications and the petitioners’ representations, the Court considered the inaction unsustainable and directed the Tahasildar to make the entries in accordance with the forwarded report and the 2011 order.

The Tahasildar was directed to enter the petitioners’ names in the revenue records in accordance with the Assistant Director of Land Records’ report, the Deputy Director of Land Records’ order dated 20 October 2011, and the letter referred to in the order as dated 8 October 2025, within four weeks.

The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 6 November 2026, and the Court warned that non-compliance could result in serious action, including withholding the concerned Tahasildar’s salary.