After land-use restrictions are lifted, diversion applications must be decided in accordance with law.

The petitioner challenged memos dated 15 June 2026 and 30 July 2026 imposing restrictions on the sale, transfer and diversion of land in villages proposed to be affected by a goods railway track, as well as an order dated 5 August 2026 concerning review of an earlier diversion order.

During the proceedings, the authorities issued a fresh memo dated 12 October 2026 lifting the restrictions.

The petitioner sought liberty to apply for diversion of land, and the State submitted that any such application could be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

Whether the subsequent lifting of the restrictions left any issue requiring further relief in the writ petition.

Whether the petitioner could apply to the competent authority for diversion of land, to be decided in accordance with law.

The Court identified no specific statute, rule, precedent or substantive legal test as the basis for its decision.

It disposed of the petition in light of the subsequent administrative action lifting the restrictions and left any future diversion application to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the memo dated 12 October 2026 had lifted the restrictions on sale, transfer and diversion of land, removing the restraint that had prompted the petitioner’s challenge.

It therefore did not adjudicate the validity of the earlier memos or review-related orders.

Instead, it granted the petitioner liberty to apply for diversion and directed that the competent authority consider and decide the application in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of with that observation.