Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
M SUNIL – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48526 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN, SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF, SHRI.WINSTON K.V, SMT.ANU JACOB, SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN
For the Respondents: GP SMT DEEPA V
Timely compliance with applications under statutory provisions is mandated.
Headnote:(1) The case concerns the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus for considering an application submitted under section 5 (4) (i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The court determined the necessity for timely action on the application. (2) The issues frame the question of timely compliance in processing applications under specific statutory provisions. The court decided that the application should be reviewed expeditiously, reflecting the importance of prompt administrative response. (3) The court orders the concerned authorities to act on the application as per the verdict delivered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's prayer for timely consideration acknowledged. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner satisfied with a directive for action. (Para 2) |
| 3. court hears submissions and decides on directions. (Para 3) |
| 4. directions issued for administrative compliance with the application. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
" I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit.P3 application dated 19.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent under section 5 (4) (i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble court;
II. To dispense with the production of the English translation of the documents in vernacular language;
III. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P3 Form – 5 application within a time frame.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to consider Ext.P3 application within a time frame.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The 3rd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P3 application to the 1st respondent/Authorised O expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2. The 1st respondent/Authorised O to consider Ext.P3 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report.
3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 1st and 3rd respondents for compliance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48526 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 11.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Judgment reserved
NA
Date of judgment
06.01.2026
Judgment dictated
06.01.2026
Draft Judgment Placed
07.01.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded
09.01.2026
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO.
