Revenue authorities directed to decide online-record correction representation within 30 days after hearing all concerned.

The petitioners claimed that, pursuant to orders passed by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court, possession of the subject property had been restored to them and their names had been entered in the offline revenue records.

However, the online revenue records continued to reflect the names of persons who had already lost the litigation.

The petitioners submitted representations to the revenue authorities seeking correction of the online records in conformity with the offline records, but alleged that no effective decision had been taken.

During the hearing, the petitioners confined their prayer to a direction for consideration and disposal of their representations. The State expressed no objection to such limited relief.

1. Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ representations seeking correction of the online revenue records in accordance with the existing offline records and applicable orders.

2. Whether such consideration should be undertaken after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties within a stipulated period.

The Court applied the principle governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly the power to issue a mandamus directing a public authority to consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with law.

Where a grievance concerns non-consideration of a representation within the authority’s administrative domain, the Court may order its expeditious determination without adjudicating the merits of the underlying claim.

The Court further required observance of natural justice by directing that all concerned parties be afforded an opportunity of hearing.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ grievance was confined to the non-consideration of their representations regarding correction of the online revenue records, while the alleged restoration of possession and entries in the offline records arose from prior litigation.

Since the petitioners had already approached the competent authorities and the State did not oppose a direction for consideration, the Court considered it appropriate to issue a limited procedural direction rather than determine the correctness of the revenue entries itself.

It therefore required the authorities to examine and decide the representations in accordance with law, after hearing all concerned parties, while expressly reserving the merits.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ claim.

No order as to costs was made.