Panchayat authorities must consider complaints of unauthorized construction and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The petitioner had filed O.S. No. 4/2020 seeking an injunction concerning property bearing Panchayat Nos. 10-88 and 10-96, with open space, adjoining property owned by respondents 1–3.

He alleged that, during the suit, respondents 1–3 began construction without authority or permission and submitted a representation to the Panchayat Development Officer (respondent 4), seeking action to stop it.

At the hearing, the petitioner stated that construction had stopped, but sought consideration of his representation.

He did not press the writ petition’s prayers other than prayer 2.

1. Whether respondent 4 should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation concerning the construction on the adjacent property.

2. Whether the Court should itself direct that construction be stopped when the petitioner stated that construction had already ceased.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the principle that mandamus may require a public authority to consider a representation and act in accordance with law, while leaving the factual and legal determination—including whether construction lacks a sanctioned plan or contravenes applicable law—to that authority.

Since construction had stopped, the Court did not grant a direction to stop it.

However, the representation raised a matter within respondent 4’s authority.

The Court therefore directed respondent 4 to consider it and take appropriate action if the authority found that the construction lacked a sanctioned plan or was otherwise contrary to law.

The Court did not decide the legality of the construction itself.

The Court issued mandamus directing respondent 4 to consider the representation and decide it within four months of receiving a copy of the order.

The order identifies the representation as dated 30 March 2023, although the petition and preceding discussion refer to it as dated 30 March 2025.

For the remaining prayers, the petitioner was given liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law.