S. A. HAKEEM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 12-8-1991 passed by the tahsildar, upholding the claim of the villagers regarding the existence of a pathway through their land in sy. No. 206 of bellundagere village. ( 2 ) THE short question that falls for consideration is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the tahsildar could invoke his powers under Section 103 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 ('the act' for short) to direct removal of the obstruction of the user of the alleged pathway. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS are admittedly the owners of 20 guntas of land in sy. No. 206. It appears that a portion of the said land was being used as a pathway by the adjoining land holders. On their complaint, the tahsildar initiated proceedings to investigate regarding the existence or otherwise of the pathway, which is alleged to have been obstructed. Upon hearing the parties, the tahsildar has held that although the village map does not indicate the pathway as passing through the portion of the land belonging to the petitioners, there was enough evidence and material on record, including the report of the surveyor, to show that this land which was originally part of the gomal has such a pathway which is being used by the villagers for a long time. The tahsildar has, inter alia, taken note of the suit for declaration filed by the petitioners in the civil court involving the said question. ( 4 ) INITIALLY, an objection was raised regarding the tahsildar's jurisdiction under Section 103 of the act. In view of the notification No. S. o. 1939, dated 30-8-1969 delegating the powers conferred on the deputy commissioner under the Provisions of the act upon the tahsildar, there cannot be any doubt regarding his jurisdiction under the said provision. ( 5 ) SRI manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the prerequisites contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the act are to be satisfied before the tahsildar could take cognizance of any complaint of obstruction. ( 5 ) SRI manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the prerequisites contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the act are to be satisfied before the tahsildar could take cognizance of any complaint of obstruction. Sub-section (2) provides that if any right of way to a land used for purposes of agriculture and duly entered in any map or land record maintained under the Act, is wrongfully obstructed or interfered with, the person aggrieved thereby could apply to the competent authority for removal of such obstruction or interference and that the authority after a summary enquiry can direct such obstruction to be removed, or the interference to be stopped, and may, for enforcing such order take such action as may be necessary. The contention of Sri manjunath is that although a pathway passing through sy. No. 206 is shown in the village map, the said pathway does not pass through the small portion of the land (20 guntas) purchased by the petitioners. As can be seen from the village map, the pathway is shown to pass through the eastern portion of the said survey number, while the petitioners admittedly own the land forming the western portion of the same survey number. It cannot be disputed that for determining the existence of a public pathway, the competent authority can not only rely upon the village map but also the land record maintained under the act. Clause (8) of the grant issued to the petitioners states that the grant is made subject to the land vested in the government and the pathway passing through it copy of the grant in form No. I shows that the said clause has been inserted by hand and it is not in the printed form. On this basis, it is contended by Sri sadashiva, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, that during the course of years subsequent events have taken place, including allotment ofresurvey number as well as acquisition of rignt of way by the adjoining holders, as it was necessary for them. It cannot be disputed that the grant issued to the petitioners themselves is part of the land record maintained under the act. It cannot be disputed that the grant issued to the petitioners themselves is part of the land record maintained under the act. In that view of the matter, it seems to me that the tahsildar was justified in invoking the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the act and giving a finding regarding the user of a portion of the land by the villagers for the beneficial enjoyment of their lands. In any event, this order also, as rightly observed by the tahsildar, is subject to the decision of the civil court if such an issue arises in that suit. It appears that the suit pending between the petitioners and some of the villagers is one for declaration of their right in respect of the land which, however, is not seriously disputed. What is in dispute is the right of the adjoining holders to pass through a portion of the land which they claim to be a public pathway. However, it is open for the petitioners to seek appropriate amendment in their suit to seek proper relief in the light of the impugned order made by the tabsildar. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. ( 7 ) SRI Thimmegowda, learned high court government pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .