Collector directed to decide representation after hearing, by a reasoned order, preferably within 45 days.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Nazul Officer, Bilaspur, in Revenue Case No. 202305074700018/A-6/2022-23.

They alleged that the order was void and non-est because it had allegedly been obtained through fraud and tampering with official records.

They further sought fresh consideration of the mutation proceedings after impleadment of all legal heirs and in accordance with a registered Will dated 02.06.2022, as well as disciplinary action against the officials allegedly responsible for record tampering.

The petitioners’ counsel submitted that a representation dated 20.04.2026 had already been submitted before the Collector under the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular and was pending consideration.

The petitioners therefore confined their prayer to a direction requiring the Collector to decide that representation after granting an opportunity of hearing and considering the supporting documents.

The State counsel raised no objection to the limited prayer.

Whether the Collector, Bilaspur should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ pending representation dated 20.04.2026 under the Revenue Book Circular?

Whether the Court should adjudicate the petitioners’ substantive allegations concerning the Nazul Officer’s order, mutation, the registered Will, and alleged tampering of official records?

The Court applied the administrative-law principles that a competent authority must consider a pending representation in accordance with law, provide a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing, consider the relevant documents and material placed by the claimant, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The direction was issued under the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular.

The Court also followed the restraint principle that, where the matter is remitted for consideration by the competent authority, the Court should not express an opinion on the merits of the underlying claim.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was specifically cited in the order.

Since the petitioners’ representation dated 20.04.2026 was pending before the competent Collector and the State had no objection to its consideration, the Court found that the immediate ends of justice would be met by directing the Collector to decide the representation rather than examining the disputed merits itself.

The Collector was required to provide the petitioners a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing, consider the documents and material supporting their claim, and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court expressly declined to determine the validity of the Nazul Officer’s order, the mutation claim, the effect of the registered Will, or the allegations of record tampering.

The exercise was directed to be completed expeditiously, preferably within 45 days from receipt of a copy of the order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ claims.