Mandamus issued to decide representation for land acquisition compensation and employment within three months.

The petitioner, a resident of Village Pondi, Surajpur, owned land that was acquired by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL).

The petitioner alleged that despite the acquisition, he had not received monetary compensation or the employment benefits purportedly due under Statement – 1A.

The petitioner had submitted multiple representations to the respondent authorities, the most recent being on October 17, 2025, but none were considered or decided upon.

Seeking redressal, the petitioner approached the High Court to compel the respondents to release compensation and ensure compliance with employment benefits.

Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation regarding compensation and employment within a specified timeframe.

The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (implied by the WPC designation).

The administrative law principle of procedural fairness, which mandates that authorities must consider and resolve claims or representations made by affected parties within a reasonable period, especially when such claims involve statutory or contractual obligations like land acquisition compensation.

The petitioner’s counsel requested a limited relief: a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation within a fixed period.

The respondents’ counsel raised no objection to this limited prayer, stating that a fresh or pending representation would be considered in accordance with the law.

The Court, having perused the documents and noted the consensus between the parties on this procedural point, found it appropriate to dispose of the petition at the motion stage without delving into the merits of the underlying compensation claim.

By setting a three-month deadline, the Court sought to resolve the administrative delay while allowing the statutory body (SECL) to exercise its primary decision-making authority.

The decision must be made expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the court’s order.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation, which the authorities are required to consider alongside the pending claims.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.