01Facts
The petitioners alleged that the Town Municipal Council, Thalikote (formerly the Gram Panchayat), collected money from them between 1958 and 1971 on the assurance that residential plots would be allotted to them.
pp. 11–14 · ¶ 3–8Acquisition proceedings concerning the proposed layout were quashed in W.P. No. 23180 of 1990; the ensuing appeal was disposed of on the basis of a joint memo.
pp. 11–14 · ¶ 3–8The petitioners later made representations seeking plots, including a representation dated 26 July 2021 and a further representation dated 5 February 2025.
pp. 11–14 · ¶ 3–8The Council objected that it could not form a layout and that rival lists of applicants claimed to have paid money.
pp. 11–14 · ¶ 3–8The petitioners sought, among other relief, a direction to allot plots.
pp. 11–14 · ¶ 3–802Issues
i.1. Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing the respondents to allot residential plots to the petitioners despite the absence of material establishing that converted land and plots were available for allotment
p. 13 · ¶ 7ii.2. Whether the Town Municipal Council should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ representations after verifying its records
pp. 14–15 · ¶ 8 and order03Law Applied
The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as invoked in the petition, and directed the authority to consider the representations in accordance with law.
pp. 10–11, 13–15It applied no specific statutory provision or precedent in its reasoning.
pp. 10–11, 13–15The Court’s stated principle was that a positive direction to allot plots was not appropriate without material showing that converted land and sites were available; the authority could, however, be required to make and communicate a decision on the representations after verifying its records.
pp. 10–11, 13–1504Reasoning
The Court declined to direct allotment because the alleged payments were made decades earlier and the record did not establish that converted land or available plots existed.
pp. 12–14 · ¶ 4–8The Council’s objections—including the quashing of the acquisition proceedings and the existence of rival claims—also underscored the need for verification rather than an immediate allotment order.
pp. 12–14 · ¶ 4–8However, given the petitioners’ representations and the Council’s failure to respond, the Court considered it just to require the Council to examine those representations against its records and issue a decision.
pp. 12–14 · ¶ 4–805Holding
The petition was allowed, but the Court did not order allotment of plots.
p. 15, orderIt issued a mandamus directing respondent No. 9, the Town Municipal Council, Thalikote, to consider the Annexure-J representations and the representation dated 5 February 2025 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within six months of receiving a copy of the order.
p. 15, orderNo order was made as to costs.
p. 15, orderOriginal Court PDF
SRI. G. D. INAMDARvsTHE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
