Court Directs District Collector to Decide Representation Against Encroachment on Government Land Within One Week

The petitioner is the recorded tenure-holder and owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 797, admeasuring 0.3030 hectare, situated at Village Bilaua, Tehsil Dabra, District Gwalior.

Adjacent Government land bearing Survey No. 796, admeasuring 0.272 hectare, was allegedly encroached upon by private respondent Dharmendra Jatav, who raised unauthorized construction without permission from the competent authority, thereby obstructing the petitioner's access to his land and disturbing his peaceful enjoyment of the property.

The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 19.06.2026 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dabra, pursuant to which the Naib Tehsildar, Circle Bilaua, by order dated 29.06.2026, directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Parishad Bilaua, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Bilaua, to immediately stop the unauthorized construction.

The Chief Municipal Officer, by communication dated 07.07.2026, sought police assistance, but the police authorities failed to cooperate, and the encroachment continued.

The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P/3) before the Collector, District Gwalior, seeking removal of the encroachment and stoppage of construction; however, no effective action was taken.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus/direction ought to be issued to Respondent No. 2, Collector, District Gwalior, to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P/3) within a stipulated period, in accordance with law.

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

The governing principle applied is the established writ-court practice of directing a statutory/administrative authority to consider and decide a pending representation within a time-bound framework where the petitioner seeks only a limited, non-adjudicatory relief and the State raises no objection.

The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had confined his prayer to the limited relief of a direction to the Collector to consider and decide the representation dated 09.07.2026 (Annexure P/3), and that the learned Government Advocate for the State had no objection to such a direction being issued.

Given the circumscribed nature of the relief—which did not require the Court to adjudicate upon the legality of the alleged encroachment, the rights of the parties, or the merits of the unauthorized construction—the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the petition at the threshold by issuing a time-bound direction to the competent authority.

The Court expressly recorded that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, thereby preserving the Collector's independent statutory discretion to decide the representation in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter. No order as to costs was recorded, and the petition stood disposed of with the aforesaid direction.