Collector Directed to Resolve Title Discrepancy Between Municipal Allotment and Government Revenue Records

The petitioners purchased residential plots from the Municipal Corporation, Sagar, following a tender invitation notice dated March 3, 2022.

Despite the allotment order dated December 7, 2016, the revenue records continued to reflect the State of Madhya Pradesh as the owner of the land (Raqba 9.00 hectare out of Kh.No.135).

Because the land remains registered as government property, the authorities have refused to mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records.

The petitioners submitted a representation to the Collector, Sagar, on August 5, 2025, which remained pending.

Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus for mutation or, alternatively, a refund with interest.

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to decide on the petitioners' representation regarding the discrepancy between the Municipal Corporation's allotment and the State's revenue records.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary power to direct a time-bound disposal of the administrative grievance without adjudicating on the merits.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue directions or writs for the enforcement of rights and for any other purpose.

The Court relied on the principle of administrative responsiveness and procedural fairness, implying that when a subordinate authority (such as the Tahsildar) identifies a discrepancy in land records and refers it to a superior (the Collector), the superior authority is duty-bound to resolve the representation within a reasonable period.

The Court observed that there is an undisputed discrepancy in the revenue records: while the Municipal Corporation, Sagar, allotted the plots to the petitioners, the land is still recorded as State-owned property.

The Court noted that even the Tahsildar had forwarded the matter to the Collector, Sagar, highlighting this inconsistency.

Rather than adjudicating the title or the right to mutation, the Court focused on the failure of the respondent No. 4 (Collector) to act on the pending representation dated August 5, 2025.

The Court reasoned that it would be "conducive as well as expedient in the interest of justice" to mandate a time-bound decision to resolve the petitioners' grievance.

The Collector is directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P/22) within 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The final order must be a "well-reasoned and speaking order" passed in accordance with the law.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.