Direction to decide land allotment claims within sixty days while restraining coercive action against occupants.

The petitioners, members of a tribal community, are the legal heirs of the founder members of the "Adiwasi Krishi Sahakari Samiti, Bindranawagarh," which was established in 1967-68.

The State government had originally allotted approximately 101.18 hectares of government land (Khasra Nos. 383, 395, 399, 401, 434, 509, and 510) to the Samiti for rehabilitation and livelihood, with each member receiving 10 acres.

Following the death of the founder members, the Samiti’s registration was cancelled, and the land was reverted to the Government’s name in revenue records.

Despite this, the petitioners remained in continuous possession for over 40–45 years, utilizing the land for housing and agriculture.

Although favorable reports were submitted by the Revenue Inspector and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the petitioners' individual applications for the grant of patta (land title) remained unaddressed.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction for the allotment of land and liberty to file a fresh representation before the Collector.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a time-bound consideration of their grievance regarding the allotment of patta for lands they have possessed for over four decades.

2. Whether the court should grant interim protection against coercive actions pending the administrative disposal of the petitioners' claims.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions to authorities for the redressal of grievances.

The court applied administrative law principles requiring statutory authorities to decide representations through a "reasoned and speaking order" following due inquiry.

It further observed the State's obligation to consider the rehabilitation and livelihood claims of tribal populations in possession of government land.

The Court observed that the petitioners' claim rested on their status as tribal people and their long-standing possession of land originally allotted to their ancestors for rehabilitation.

Given the "limited grievance" of the petitioners—which was not for an immediate grant of title by the Court but for a direction to the authorities to decide their pending claims—the Court found it appropriate to relegate the matter to the District Collector.

The Court reasoned that since the Revenue Inspector and SDO had already submitted detailed reports in favor of the petitioners, the Collector must evaluate these documents and the petitioners' legal standing as heirs of the Samiti members.

By directing a "reasoned and speaking order," the Court ensured that the administrative decision-making process would be transparent and subject to legal scrutiny.

The Collector is directed to decide the representation in accordance with the law, following due inquiry, through a reasoned and speaking order within 60 days of receipt.

Critically, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners regarding their possession of the land until the Collector reaches a decision.

No costs were awarded.