An authority must assess alternative-site claims after verifying land use and comparable allotments.

The petitioner asserted that he and his family members owned 1 acre 11 guntas in Sy. No. 60/3, Nadanahalli Village, Mysuru, of which MUDA had used 26 guntas to form a road.

He sought alternative sites as compensation, maintaining that no other development had been undertaken on the land.

An earlier acquisition notification was quashed insofar as it concerned the family’s land, with liberty to MUDA to initiate acquisition after approval of a scheme; the petitioner also relied on a decree in a civil suit brought by his mother.

MUDA’s Zonal Officer had issued a communication dated 12 July 2023 stating that there had been no development, but it did not refer to an inspection or report.

At the preliminary hearing, MUDA’s counsel submitted that the Authority could be directed to verify the petitioner’s claim and decide his request.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court identified no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision. It applied the administrative-law principle that a public authority’s decision should be based on an adequate inquiry and relevant records; an unexplained communication that does not disclose whether an inspection or report was made may undermine the rule of law.

The petitioner did not contest the use of 26 guntas for the road and confined his claim to compensation by way of alternative sites.

MUDA’s counsel agreed that the Authority could call for information and determine eligibility, subject to verifying the land’s use and the petitioner’s claim.

Because the 2023 communication did not establish that the land had been inspected or that a report supported its conclusion, the Court directed MUDA to investigate the land’s use and obtain a report from the Zonal Office before deciding the representation.

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s entitlement to sites.

MUDA must obtain detailed information on the land’s use, verify whether similarly situated persons were allotted sites, and decide the representation within three months of its receipt.

It must also obtain a report concerning the Zonal Officer’s communication dated 12 July 2023 and act as warranted if the circumstances disclose cause for further action.