Mandamus to Competent Authority for Time-Bound Disposal of Pending Representation on Government Land Allotment

Ten residents of Village Darripar, Gariyaband, primarily engaged in agriculture, filed a writ petition seeking the reservation of Government land (Khasra No. 495/1, area 0.46 hectare) for a communal grazing and cattle shelter area (Gauthan)

The petitioners contended that the current lack of a Gauthan causes local hazards and that proposed allotments of the same land to specific communities for cultural buildings might cause communal disharmony

They submitted representations to the Collector, Gariyaband, requesting the cancellation of proposed private allotments in favor of the Gauthan, which remained pending

1. Whether the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct a time-bound disposal of pending administrative representations regarding the allotment of Government land

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions or orders to any person or authority for the enforcement of rights or for any other purpose

The court relied on the administrative law principle that competent authorities are duty-bound to consider and decide representations preferred by citizens in accordance with the law, provided the grievance is legitimate and the relief sought is procedural in nature

The Court observed that the petitioners’ grievance was limited to the non-consideration of their representations by the executive authorities

While the State counsel questioned the maintainability of the petition based on the specific reliefs sought, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate on the merits of the land allotment dispute itself. Instead, it focused on the procedural delay.

By directing the Collector to decide the matter, the Court applied the principle of "expeditious disposal" to ensure that administrative silence does not result in a denial of the petitioners' right to be heard

The Court maintained judicial restraint by explicitly stating it had not expressed any opinion on the merits, thereby leaving the substantive decision-making to the statutory authority

The Court ordered that this exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order

The authority was directed to act independently of any observations made in the judgment