S. TEJA SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. TEHSILDAR NARWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for issue of writs of certiorari and mandamus against Tahsildar Narwana. The petitioners are Sardars Teja Singh and Chiranjit Singh sons of the late S. Gurbakash Singh who was a biswedar of village Harnampura. The petitioners' allegation is that in spite of the fact that the land in village Harnampura belonged to them and they were entitled to its produce the Tahsildar made an order on or about 2 -5 -1951, by which he took the produce of the land for Rabi 2008 in his own charge and deprived the petitioners of it. They further allege that the action of the Tahsildar was illegal and pray that his order be quashed and he be asked to hand over the produce to the petitioners.

(2.) THE learned Advocate -General who appears on behalf of the Tahsildar has put in a written statement in which the whole position has been explained. According to him an application was made to the Tahsildar by the tenants of the land complaining that the landlord's Mukhtar demanded from them something over and above the share of the produce to which the landlords were entitled and since this created a dispute between them and the landlords and subjected the tenants to hardship they prayed that an arbitrator be appointed for the appraisement and division of the produce. The application with the report of the Naib -Tahsildar on it came up before the Tahsildar on 1 -5 -1951, whereupon he appointed two persons as referees for the appraisement and division of the produce under Section 17 of the Tenancy Act. The learned Advocate -General contends that since the order made by the Tahsildar was administrative one the Court could not issue any writ in respect thereof.

(3.) IT is urged by the petitioners' Counsel that since the referees have not so far taken any proceedings under Section 18 and the produce of the land is lying unbarred for the petitioners have suffered a great loss thereby. This may be correct, but the trouble is that the referees are not before me and the written statement of the learned Advocate -General does not throw any light on the question whether or not the referees have taken any steps for the division or appraisement of the produce. Probably they have not taken any proceedings because if they had the result of division or appraisement would have been reported to the Tahsildar under Section 19 and the fact that the written statement of the Advocate -General put in on behalf of the Tahsildar is silent on the point raises the presumption that this has not been done.