Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Sikandar, proprietor of Dada Peer Saw Mill, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities, particularly the Assistant Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Tumakuru Sub-Division, and the Commissioner, Tumakuru Urban Development Authority, not to dispossess him from the schedule property pending disposal of his application dated 08-05-2017. The application, which sought regularisation of unauthorised occupation of land, was submitted to the authorities and was kept pending as per an endorsement dated 20-09-2019 bearing No.LAQCR03/2014-15 issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner contended that despite the lapse of several years, the respondents had failed to consider and dispose of his application, causing him prejudice. The respondents, represented by the Government Advocate and counsel for the Urban Development Authority and Municipal Council, did not raise any substantial objection to the prayer. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the authorities were duty-bound to consider the application within a reasonable time. The court noted that the application had been pending since 2017 and the endorsement of 2019 merely kept it pending without any decision. Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application dated 08-05-2017 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application and that the authorities would decide it in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Mandamus - Duty to Decide Pending Application - The High Court held that when a statutory authority is vested with the power to consider an application, it is duty-bound to consider and dispose of the same within a reasonable time. Failure to do so amounts to dereliction of duty and justifies issuance of a writ of mandamus. (Paras 3-4) B) Land Acquisition - Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation - The petitioner's application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of land, made under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, was kept pending by the respondent authorities without any decision. The court directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the application within three months, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application dated 08-05-2017 for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of land, which has been kept pending since 2019.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of. The respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application dated 08-05-2017 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No opinion on merits.
Law Points
- Mandamus
- Duty to decide pending application
- Reasonable time
- Administrative law
- Right to be heard
