Petitioners must allow authorities reasonable time to consider representations before seeking mandamus.

The petitioner claimed rights over a 3,600 sq. ft. site in Sy. No. 16/1, Kothnur village, which he said had been conveyed to him by gift deed. The land had been notified for acquisition in 1994 for formation of Jayaprakash Nagar VIII Stage, and the petitioner asserted that the site was identified as Site No. 738 in the BDA layout.

He sought regularisation and submitted representations to the authorities on 20 July and 11 August 2026. Having received no decision, he filed this petition on 14 August 2026 seeking a direction to consider them.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the BDA authorities to consider his representations seeking regularisation of the site.

2. Whether the petitioner’s prompt filing of the petition, before allowing the authorities reasonable time to consider the representations, warranted costs.

In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a writ of mandamus is not to be issued routinely.

The applicant must establish a legally recognised right or privilege, a corresponding duty on the authority, and the authority’s failure to act within a reasonable time. A person who has recently made a representation must allow the authority reasonable time to consider it before seeking mandamus.

The Court noted that the petitioner had remained silent since the 1994 final acquisition notification, but filed his first representation only on 20 July 2026, a further representation on 11 August, and the petition three days later. The authorities had not been given sufficient time to apply their minds to the claim, and the Court criticised the petition as an attempt to obtain judicial intervention prematurely.

Nevertheless, it directed consideration of the representations, while leaving the merits of the petitioner’s claim entirely open. To discourage premature petitions of this kind, it imposed costs.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the regularisation claim. The petitioner was also directed to pay ₹5,000 in costs to respondent 2 within two weeks of receiving the certified copy.