Competent authorities must decide patta claims according to law after affording concerned parties a hearing.

The petitioners claimed possession of forest land situated at Village Bedhwapathra, Tehsil Kukrel, District Dhamtari, for more than 40 years and sought grant of patta.

They asserted that similarly situated persons in long-standing possession of forest land had been considered for such grants.

Although they had submitted a representation in 2022, it had allegedly not been decided.

During the proceedings, the petitioners relied upon a fresh representation dated 03.08.2026 and confined their prayer to a direction requiring the competent authorities to consider and decide it in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of hearing.

The State raised no objection to the limited relief sought.

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation dated 03.08.2026 concerning grant of patta over the forest land, in accordance with law.

Whether the High Court should express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ claim for grant of patta.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider and decide a properly submitted representation in accordance with the applicable legal provisions, after affording an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

The Court further applied the principle that, while issuing a mandamus for consideration of a representation, it must not adjudicate the underlying merits where the statutory authority has not yet undertaken that exercise; the decision must remain strictly subject to law and the merits of the claim.

No specific statute or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

Since the petitioners’ earlier representation had allegedly remained undecided and the State did not oppose consideration of the fresh representation dated 03.08.2026, the Court found it appropriate to issue a limited procedural direction rather than determine entitlement to patta.

The Court required the competent authorities to consider the representation in accordance with law and after hearing all concerned, thereby protecting procedural fairness while preserving the authorities’ statutory discretion.

It expressly declined to assess whether the petitioners were legally entitled to regularisation or grant of patta.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim and that the competent authority must decide the matter independently under the applicable law.