Authorities must consider Ashraya-site representations without the Court determining entitlement.

The petitioners claimed to have paid for vacant 20×30 sites in Sy. No. 39, Ramasandra, Bengaluru, allotted under the Ashraya Scheme, but stated that Hakku Patras had not been issued.

They sought a direction requiring the Deputy Commissioner to consider their representations and issue the relevant documents.

The petitioners relied on a coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 37216 of 2025, which had directed consideration of representations while expressly leaving the petitioners’ entitlement undecided.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representations concerning their Ashraya Scheme sites.

2. Whether the Court should determine the petitioners’ entitlement to the sites or the issuance of Hakku Patras in this proceeding.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the approach in W.P. No. 37216 of 2025 (order dated 11 December 2025): the authority may be directed to consider representations and pass necessary orders within a specified period, but such a direction does not determine the applicants’ substantive entitlement.

The Court treated the petitioners as similarly situated to those in W.P. No. 37216 of 2025 and noted their claim that they had paid for the sites but had not received Hakku Patras.

Following the coordinate Bench’s approach, it directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representations rather than decide the petitioners’ entitlement itself.

The order also allowed the respondents to seek any further information or documents needed for that consideration.

The Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider the representations dated 25, 26, 27 and 28 October 2025 (Annexures E1–E21) and pass necessary orders within six weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the petitioners were to be informed of the outcome.

The Court expressed no opinion on their entitlement to the sites.