Pending land-rights application must be decided on merits within 60 days, without prejudging entitlement.

The petitioner, a cultivator, claimed lawful occupation of the disputed forest land situated at Village Mahuli, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

He had submitted an application in 2020 seeking settlement/allotment of the land and grant of forest lease/land rights in his favour, but the application remained pending before the competent authorities.

In the meantime, proceedings for his removal from the land were initiated, and the petitioner also sought shifting of a proposed cow-shed to another vacant site.

He therefore approached the High Court seeking directions for consideration of his pending application and protection against coercive action.

Whether the concerned authorities should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application for settlement/allotment and grant of land rights in accordance with law?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to protection from coercive steps concerning the disputed land until his application was decided?

The Court applied the principle that a pending application for settlement, allotment, or grant of land rights must be considered by the competent statutory authority in accordance with the applicable law and rules, and that the High Court may issue a limited mandamus requiring such consideration within a specified period.

Mere pendency of an application does not create any right, title, or entitlement in favour of the applicant.

The competent authority must independently assess the claim and pass a reasoned order on its merits.

The Court confined its examination to the petitioner’s limited request for a decision on his pending application.

Since the application had allegedly remained undecided since 2020, and the State had no objection to its consideration in accordance with law, the Court directed the competent authorities to decide it on its own merits.

The Court expressly declined to adjudicate the petitioner’s entitlement to the land or to grant forest lease or bhumiswami rights, leaving those matters to the competent authority.

Pending such decision, the Court considered it appropriate to restrain coercive action for the specified period, without treating that protection as recognition of any title or legal right in the petitioner.

The authorities were permitted to determine the petitioner’s entitlement independently, and the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of his claim.

No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner in respect of the subject land until expiry of the 60-day period.