Authorities must decide partition-based land-allotment representations while maintaining status quo until such decision.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution along with four connected petitions concerning land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to notification dated 26 July 2024.

The petitioners, who were cousin brothers, challenged the approval order under which only one alternative plot was allotted jointly to them, despite an earlier partition having allegedly been effected and mutated in the revenue records among seven individual co-sharers.

The petitioners contended that the authority issued notice only to one person and consequently failed to make seven separate allotments.

The respondent authority submitted that it had acted on the material available on record and that no partition documents had been produced when notice was issued, although notice had been served on the petitioner’s representative.

The petitioners had submitted individual representations dated 30 January 2026, marked as Annexure P-7, which remained undecided.

Whether the respondent authorities were required to reconsider the allotment of alternative land by examining the alleged partition and mutation of the revenue records among the seven co-sharers.

Whether the pending representations dated 30 January 2026 were required to be decided in accordance with law before any coercive action was taken against the petitioners.

The Court exercised its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a limited mandamus requiring the competent authorities to consider and decide the petitioners’ pending representations in accordance with law.

The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness and proper consideration of relevant revenue records and other material before taking administrative action affecting land rights.

It did not finally adjudicate the petitioners’ entitlement to seven separate allotments, but directed reconsideration by the respondent authorities within a prescribed period, while protecting the petitioners against coercive action during the decision-making process and for a limited period thereafter.

The Court noted that the partition had allegedly already been reflected in the revenue records, whereas the authority had issued notice only to one person and allotted a single plot to all seven claimants.

Since the petitioners asserted that the authority had not considered their representations or the relevant partition records, the Court found it appropriate to require the respondent authorities to examine the revenue records and all other material afresh.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the allotment claim, the Court considered such reconsideration necessary in the interests of justice.

The Court also preserved the existing position during the decision-making process so that the petitioners would not suffer coercive consequences before their representations were duly considered.

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

No coercive action was to be taken until the respective representation was decided, and status quo was to be maintained until its outcome.

If the decision was adverse, the authorities were further restrained from taking coercive action for 15 days thereafter.

The parties were directed to cooperate in the proceedings.