Direction to Revenue Authority to Decide Pending Representation Regarding Land Encroachment and Interim Stay Orders

The Petitioner, Judawan Lal Patle, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to respondent authorities to prevent private respondents (Respondents 5 to 7) from raising further construction on land allegedly in the Petitioner's possession

Procedurally, the Tahsildar, Sipat, had previously passed a stay order on 02.01.2025 (and 29.08.2025) directing the private respondents to cease construction

However, the Petitioner’s subsequent representation dated 08.06.2026 remained pending without a decision

The Petitioner approached the High Court to seek a time-bound disposal of said representation

Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the Revenue Authority (Tahsildar) to decide the Petitioner's pending representation within a specific timeframe

principles of administrative law governing the duties of statutory authorities to decide pending representations in a reasonable and time-bound manner

inherent power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that subordinate authorities perform their legal duties efficiently and fairly

The Court emphasized the necessity of passing "reasoned and speaking orders" as a facet of natural justice

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s prayer was limited to the expeditious disposal of a pending representation

Given that a stay order regarding the disputed construction had already been passed by the Tahsildar on 29.08.2025, the Court found it unnecessary to keep the writ petition pending or deliberate on the merits of the property dispute

The Court focused on the procedural delay in the administrative process. By directing the Tahsildar to consider the existing stay order alongside the Petitioner's representation, the Court aimed to bridge the gap between interim relief and a final administrative determination

The Court ensured that the private respondents' rights were balanced by directing that the final order be reasoned, objective, and fair

It directed the Tahsildar to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 08.06.2026 in accordance with the law, rules, and regulations within 30 days... and pass a "reasoned and speaking order"

The Petitioner was also granted liberty to file a fresh application within 10 days, which the Tahsildar must decide within a further 30 days of its filing