Mandamus is not maintainable against anticipated actions where no formal legal proceedings have been initiated.

The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of certain Raiyati land by virtue of a sale deed, revenue rent receipts, and a Land Possession Certificate (LPC), filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent state authorities from interfering with his peaceful possession.

The petitioner alleged that the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ara, had orally informed him that his land was "public land" and that the structures therein would be demolished.

Despite submitting a representation to the Collector on February 4, 2021, the petitioner moved the High Court fearing dispossession without any formal legal notice.

The State argued that the petition was misconceived as it was based on mere anticipation of action, noting that no formal demolition or encroachment proceedings had been initiated.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the State based on a petitioner’s apprehension of future action without any formal proceedings being initiated.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to legal protection against dispossession in the absence of a notice under the relevant land encroachment statutes.

A writ of mandamus cannot be issued for an action that is yet to be taken or based on mere apprehension in the absence of a documented cause of action.

The Public Land Encroachment Act mandates that the State must serve a formal notice and initiate statutory proceedings before dispossessing an individual or demolishing structures on alleged public land.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s grievance stemmed entirely from oral statements allegedly made by the Circle Officer, with no documentary evidence on record to show that any administrative or legal action had actually been initiated against him.

The Court reasoned that the application was premature and "misconceived" because the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate fears of future actions.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to due process, stating that while the current petition could not be maintained, the State is legally bound to follow the procedure established by the Public Land Encroachment Act, including the service of notice, before taking any adverse action.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the High Court again if the State initiates any action against him without serving a proper notice under the Public Land Encroachment Act.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.