01Facts
The petitioner school stated that it had operated since 1980 on 162.5 sq. m. of land classified as Sarkar Natham Poramboke in Natham Survey No. 326/2 (old Survey No. 196/53), and that the classification impeded its efforts to obtain administrative approvals and licences.
p. 2 · ¶ 2It expressed willingness to pay the amount fixed by the Government for assignment and submitted a representation dated 11 August 2026.
p. 2 · ¶ 2After the respondents undertook to dispose of that representation within six weeks, the Court’s original order directed respondents 4 and 5 to consider it.
p. 3 · ¶ 3–5On the petitioner’s request in a “For Being Mentioned” matter, the Court corrected the direction to respondents 1 and 2 and clarified the treatment of any proposed patta in favour of third parties.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 2–502Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking assignment of the occupied Natham Poramboke land should be considered by the competent authorities, and by which respondents.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2–5 · p. 7 · ¶ 3ii.Whether a patta could be issued to a third party without first considering the petitioner’s objections and providing a personal hearing.
p. 7 · ¶ 403Law Applied
The Court proceeded under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct consideration of the petitioner’s pending representation, without deciding the merits of the assignment claim.
p. 1, Prayer · p. 3 · ¶ 5It directed the authorities to consider the claim in light of Revenue Standing Order 24 (RSO 24), and to provide notice and an opportunity of personal hearing.
p. 7 · ¶ 3–404Reasoning
The Court did not adjudicate whether the petitioner was entitled to assignment.
It corrected the original order’s identification of respondents, substituting respondents 1 and 2 for respondents 4 and 5 as the authorities required to consider the representation.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 3Given the petitioner’s claim of long-standing possession and operation of a school on the land, the Court required the competent authorities to assess the claim under RSO 24, while making clear that patta would issue only if the petitioner were found eligible.
p. 7 · ¶ 4It further protected the petitioner’s opportunity to object by directing that any third-party patta could not be issued without first considering those objections and affording a personal hearing.
p. 7 · ¶ 405Holding
The Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11 August 2026 on its merits, taking RSO 24 into account, and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order, after notice and a personal hearing.
p. 7 · ¶ 3It clarified that the petitioner’s claim must be considered before any patta is issued to a third party, but did not itself grant assignment or patta.
p. 7 · ¶ 4The clarification was made part of the order dated 1 October 2026, and the matter was disposed of.
p. 7 · ¶ 5–6Original Court PDF
Balavihar Nursery and Primary SchoolvsThe Commissioner of Land Administration
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
