A challenge to the Collector’s inquiry is premature before a final order is passed.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226, challenging proceedings initiated by the Collector after an earlier order dated 18 June 2026 directed the competent authority to consider and decide their representation concerning alleged false complaints and their rights in specified survey numbers.

They contended that the Collector had expanded the inquiry into the grant of pattas and issued notices to persons beyond the scope of that representation and the earlier writ petition.

The State submitted that notices followed anomalies identified while considering the representation.

No final order had been passed by the Collector when the present petition was heard.

Whether the Collector’s inquiry and notices exceeded the scope of the High Court’s earlier direction to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation

Whether the petition challenging the ongoing proceedings was premature in the absence of a final order by the Collector

The Court considered the scope of its earlier direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation, and the Collector’s authority to examine relevant aspects and pass a reasoned order on the material available.

It also applied the principle that a challenge to proceedings still under consideration may be premature where no final order has been passed.

Article 226 was the basis of the petition.

The Court noted the petitioners’ reliance on Abhishek Gupta v. Dinesh Kumar & Ors., but held that the precedent was not applicable to the case at that stage.

The Court found that the Collector had called for reports while considering the representation and, on the material received, considered it appropriate to issue notices to other persons.

In the circumstances, this step was not shown to be without jurisdiction or outside the earlier direction; the Collector remained entitled to examine relevant aspects and issue a reasoned order.

Because that process was ongoing and no final order had been made, the Court declined to intervene at that stage.

No relief was granted against the pending proceedings.