Authority directed to decide pending representation within thirty days regarding apprehended demolition of property.

The petitioner claims ownership of 48.19 square meters of land in Kawardha, District Kabirdham, which was gifted to him by his father and duly recorded in revenue records

The petitioner filed this writ petition alleging that the authorities of Respondent No. 5 (Municipal Council, Kawardha) threatened to demolish his house and shops, labeling them unauthorized without serving any formal notice

Although the petitioner submitted a representation on January 13, 2026, to the competent authorities, no decision was made

Respondent No. 5 contended that only measurement and demarcation had been conducted and assured the court that no demolition would proceed without following the due process of law and serving proper notice

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection against demolition based on the apprehension of unauthorized action

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner’s pending representation within a stipulated timeframe

The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It applied the principle that interim relief cannot be granted solely on apprehension without evidence of initiated demolition proceedings or formal notice

Furthermore, it relied on the administrative law principle that representations filed before competent authorities must be decided expeditiously to satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness

The court analyzed the petitioner's request for interim protection and found it unsubstantiated because no notice or evidence of initiated demolition was presented to the court

The court noted the submission of Respondent No. 5, who clarified that the activities performed on-site were limited to measurement and demarcation, and that no demolition notice had been issued yet

Because the petitioner’s claim was based on mere apprehension rather than a concrete legal injury already set in motion, the court declined to grant interim protection

However, acknowledging the limited alternative prayer of the petitioner, the court determined that the pending representation dated January 13, 2026, warranted a timely administrative decision

The court directed Respondent No. 5 to decide the petitioner’s representation dated January 13, 2026, within 30 days from the date of receipt or submission of the court’s order

All pending applications were also disposed of