Authority directed to decide representation regarding execution of property exchange deeds for subsequent purchasers.

The Petitioners purchased Plot No. E-01 (251.35 sq. mt.) in Sector-1, Tikrapara, Raipur, via a registered sale deed dated 13.08.2015 from Respondent No. 5.

Respondent No. 5 had originally acquired the plot from the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) under a "Definitive Agreement Scheme".

The land was subsequently recorded in the Petitioners' names and declared freehold.

On 04.07.2025, Respondent No. 3 issued a memo stating that the plot number was changed to D-73, which had an increased area of 252.96 sq. mt.

Although the Petitioners deposited the differential premium amount of Rs. 37,725/- as directed, the RDA allegedly executed the exchange deed for the new plot in favor of the original owner (Respondent No. 5) instead of the Petitioners.

The Petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the RDA to execute the exchange deed in their favor.

Whether the Petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Raipur Development Authority to execute the exchange deed for Plot No. D-73 in their favor as the subsequent purchasers and current titleholders.

Whether the Court should grant liberty to the Petitioners to seek administrative redressal through a formal representation before the Respondent Authority.

The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of legal rights.

The Court applied the principle of administrative exhaustion and procedural fairness, allowing a statutory body (RDA) to first adjudicate a representation regarding contractual and land allotment disputes before judicial intervention.

The Court did not delve into the merits of the title dispute or the validity of the exchange deed executed in favor of Respondent No. 5.

Instead, it focused on the "limited prayer" made by the Petitioners' counsel during the hearing, which requested a direction for the RDA to consider a formal representation.

Since the Respondents raised no objection to this procedural course of action, the Court determined that the most efficient remedy was to allow the Petitioners to submit their grievances directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the RDA (Respondent No. 2) for a time-bound decision.

This approach ensures that the administrative authority reviews the factual discrepancy regarding why the exchange deed was executed in favor of the previous owner despite the Petitioners being the registered titleholders and having paid the differential premium.

It granted liberty to the Petitioners to file a detailed representation before Respondent No. 2 within 15 days of the order.

The Court further directed Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide said representation in accordance with the law within 30 days from the date of receipt.

No order was made as to costs.