Havappa vs Tahsildar, Aurad (B) and Others

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ petitioner claims to be the owner of some property and it is interfered by the Tahsildar purporting to execute a compromise decree that had been entered into amongst respondents 2 and 3 in a suit, in which the petitioner was not a party. Writ petitioner has contended that the Tahsildar has no power or authority to execute a Civil Court decree, assuming that there was a compromise decree between respondents 2 and 3; that he has no jurisdiction to execute a decree without the authorisation by a Civil Court; that he is acting on his own, taking law into his own hands and that too, to effect the property of the petitioner which was deliberately and illegally included in the subject-matter of the compromise decree between respondents 2 and 3; that the property belong to the petitioner and had been given to him in a family partition.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned Counsel is that the Tahsildar is taking law into his own hands; that he is acting in arbitrary manner; that without authority of law he is trying to take possession of the property and also to make revenue entries etc.

Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while the prayer for quashing the compromise decree in O.S. No. 123 of 2010, dated 26-8-2011 passed by the Lok Adalath Court/Additional Senior Civil Judge at Bidar is not pressed for relief, writ of mandamus is nevertheless sought for that the Tahsildar should be restrained from acting in high handed manner.

On the other hand Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babashetty, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent 1 submits that the term of the compromise decree did enable the Tahsildar to effect the revenue entries etc.

Be that as it may, it is not necessary for this Court to enquire in the writ jurisdiction. If the writ petitioner is aggrieved that property of his ownership is sought to be affected or interfered, either by the Tahsildar or any other respondents, it is open to him to seek relief before Civil Court in a manner as permitted in law. Enquiry of this nature is not practical or desirable in writ jurisdiction, particularly where title disputes are involved. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his rights and remedies elsewhere and even to bring it to the notice of higher authorities about the revenue entries etc., this writ petition is dismissed.