Acquisition authorities must decide allotment representations after examining partition mutations and relevant revenue records.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, along with four connected petitions, challenging the approval/allotment action taken pursuant to land-acquisition proceedings initiated by notification dated 26.07.2024.

The petitioner and the petitioners in the connected matters were cousin brothers and claimed that their land had already been partitioned and separately mutated in the revenue records among seven individuals. Despite this partition, the respondent authorities issued notice only to one person and allotted a single alternative plot jointly to the seven alleged co-sharers, instead of making individual allotments.

The petitioner relied on a representation dated 30.01.2026, which, according to him, had not been decided by the authority.

The respondent authority submitted that it had acted on the material available on record and that no partition document had been produced when the relevant notice was issued. The State stated that the pending representation would be considered in accordance with law.

1. Whether the respondent authorities were required to reconsider the allotment of alternative land by examining the petitioner’s claim of individual partition and mutation in the revenue records

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection against coercive action pending determination of his representation

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, adopting a limited judicial-review approach without finally adjudicating the merits of the competing claims.

It directed the competent authorities to examine the revenue records, the petitioner’s representation, and other relevant material, and to pass a reasoned decision in accordance with law.

The Court also applied the principle that, where an adverse administrative decision may affect a person’s rights, the affected person should receive consideration of his relevant material and a reasonable opportunity for the authority to decide the matter fairly.

The Court did not conclusively determine whether seven separate allotments were legally required. Instead, it found that the petitioner’s claim of partition and mutation in the revenue record required examination by the respondent authorities, particularly because the allotment had apparently been made on the basis of notice to only one person.

In the interests of justice, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to consider each petitioner’s representation individually, verify the revenue records and other available material, and decide the matter in accordance with law.

Pending that decision, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the existing position and prevent coercive action.

The decision was to be communicated individually to the petitioner, preferably by registered post with acknowledgment due.

Until the representation was decided, no coercive action was to be taken and status quo was to be maintained. If the decision was adverse, the authorities were additionally directed not to take coercive action for 15 days after such decision.