Pending disputes over a separate parcel do not justify withholding compensation for acquired land.

The petitioner claimed an extent of 1 acre 4 guntas in R.S. No. 385A/1, Shiraguppi Village, which was acquired for National Highway No. 548B.

The RTC was stated to record the respective interests in the larger parcel, including the petitioner’s claimed extent.

Two civil suits were pending concerning 10 guntas attributed to the petitioner’s mother, but the High Court noted that neither suit concerned the petitioner’s claimed 1 acre 4 guntas.

Following an award notice requiring supporting documents, the petitioner submitted representations seeking payment of compensation; the authority had not acted on them.

The judgment refers to the later representation as dated 16 March 2026 in the factual narrative, but the operative direction identifies it as dated 6 March 2026; the petition’s prayer refers to 16 March 2026.

1. Whether the pending civil suits concerning 10 guntas provided a basis to withhold consideration or payment of compensation for the petitioner’s separate claim to 1 acre 4 guntas.

2. Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representations and deposit compensation for the acquired extent claimed by him.

Article 300A of the Constitution protects the right to property; where property is acquired, the authority is required to pay compensation in accordance with law.

The Court applied the principle that mandamus may issue where a public authority fails to discharge its legal duty: here, to consider the petitioner’s representations and act on the compensation claim.

The Court found prima facie force in the petitioner’s submission that the pending suits related only to 10 guntas attributed to his mother and did not concern his claimed 1 acre 4 guntas.

Since the petitioner had submitted representations and the authority had not acted on them, the Court considered the continued inaction unsustainable and indicative of laxity.

In light of the property having been acquired and Article 300A, it directed the authority to consider the representations and deposit compensation for the petitioner’s claimed extent in accordance with law.

The Court issued a mandamus directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representations and deposit compensation for 1 acre 4 guntas out of the 1 acre 26 guntas in R.S. No. 385A/1, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and within four weeks.

The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 6 November 2026.