JUDGMENT 1. Writ petitioner asserts that in respect of agricultural land measuring an extent of 36 guntas in Sy.No.61 of Ramagondanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, with considerable effort and perseverance obtained decree for specific performance of an agreement under which the petitioner was entitled to buy the land from one Doddasiddappa and others as per the decree granted in OS No.1812 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. It appears the petitioner armed with the decree and with the court having directed execution of sale deed and having so got sale deed executed and registered, perhaps thought his woes were over and approached the revenue authorities for consequential entries to be made in the revenue records and also for preparing a sketch of the particular land after taking measurements etc.,. 3. However, such efforts on the part of the petitioner having been halted by the endorsement darted 22.9.2010 (copy at Annexure-D) issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, apprising the petitioner that in terms of a court order in favour of one Venkatesh in OS No.560 of 2010 wherein the petitioner figured as a defendant and the court having granted an order in favour of such person, quite naturally such person opposing or obstructing the entry into the land either by the revenue authorities or by the petitioner, having issued an endorsement that it is not possible to prepare the sketch, in such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court seeking following reliefs: “(i) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the endorsement issued, bearing No.Mojani Nam.20021108467304/09-10 dated 22.09.2010, issued by the respondent vide Annexure-D in the interest of justice and equity. (ii) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus to respondent to prepare the survey sketch of the property measuring 36 guntas out of 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.61 of Maragondanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which bounded by, East – Property of Patel Anjanappa West – Property of Ramalingaiah North – Property of Lingappa South – Property of Chikkasiddappa (iii) Pass any order or writ under the circumstance of the case that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Sri. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission of Sri. Prakash, learned counsel is that the revenue authorities cannot sit in Judgment over the decree passed by the civil court; that when once the petitioner had obtained decree for specific performance and had also obtained sale deed, it was their bounden duty to bring the revenue records to conform such determination by the civil court and therefore the endorsement at Annexure-D should be quashed and consequential directions issued to the respondent. 5. This writ petition suffers from many maladies. In the first instance, the only respondent to the writ petition is the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar is the lowest ranking revenue officer. A writ petition does not lie against each and every sundry Tahsildar in the State. Writ is issued only against the State and not impleading the State as a party is the first lacuna in the writ petition. The second lacuna is that person who is causing problems to the petitioner, namely, Venkatesh does not figure as a respondent to the writ petition. 6. This procedural defect apart, when once there is an order passed in favour of such person by a civil court wherein the petitioner figures as a defendant, that order undoubtedly binds the petitioner and the revenue authorities cannot be found fault with. They are only obeying and respecting such orders passed by the civil court. The endorsement at Annexure-D cannot be made subject matter for issue of a writ of certiorari and likewise, no further direction can be issued. 7. It is open to the petitioner to work out his further rights and remedies before the civil court itself for which there is no impediment. 8. Writ petition is dismissed.