Authorities must decide compensation representations consistently with prior judicial directions on government-used land.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 33 acres and 32 guntas in Survey No. 11 at Allagi (K), of which seven acres were allegedly used by the Government in 1950–51 for house sites for displaced persons, without payment of compensation

In W.P. No. 7778/2008, the High Court directed an inquiry into whether the land had been used and stated that, if so, the Government could not refuse compensation and should acquire the land or compensate the petitioner

In W.P. No. 81471/2011, the Court recorded that the land had been used for a public purpose and directed the authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings, assess market value and pay compensation, with a separate inquiry into damages under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act

The petitioner later sought compliance, relying on representations made between 2011 and 2017; the Court noted that they had not been considered

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s outstanding representations in light of the earlier orders concerning the alleged use of his land and compensation

2. Whether the Court should itself grant the requested mandamus directing completion of acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation and damages

The 2008 order required a fact-finding inquiry into whether the petitioner’s land had been used and stated that, if use was established, the Government could not refuse compensation and should acquire the land or compensate the petitioner

The 2011 order directed initiation of acquisition proceedings, assessment of market value and payment of just compensation, and a separate inquiry into damages under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act

In the present petition under Articles 226 and 227, the Court directed consideration of the representations in light of those prior orders; it did not independently determine compensation or damages

The Court noted that the earlier orders addressed the alleged public use of the land and the consequential acquisition or compensation, while the petitioner’s subsequent representations had remained undecided

Rather than itself determine the compensation claim or order the acquisition proceedings completed, the Court required the respondents to consider the identified representations against the observations and directions in the earlier writ proceedings and communicate their decision to the petitioner

The respondents must communicate their decision to the petitioner; no order as to costs was made