SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3527

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MATHEW VIBEN T – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2672 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SYAM K.P., SRI.T.G.SUNIL, SHRI.ASHISH GOPAL K G, SHRI.P.MUHAMMED SHIYAS, SMT.POOJA K., SMT.VINIMOL V.S., SMT.NAMITHA PRASAD, SMT.LIJI ESAHAK
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

The Court mandates timely processing of applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, ensuring legal compliance within specified timeframes.

Headnote:The petitioners filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to compel the 3rd Respondent to consider their Form - 6 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The Court decided that the 6th Respondent must report on the application within one month, and the 3rd Respondent must consider the application based on this report within three months, while being free to act in accordance with the law. The final ruling stipulates the obligation of the petitioners to provide a certified copy of the judgment for compliance.

Table of Content
1. request for mandamus to consider application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments heard from both sides. (Para 3)
3. court directs timeframes for compliance. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" (i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs or Orders commanding the 3rd Respondent to immediately consider Exhibit.P2 application of the Petitioners, and to issue directions for the removal and rectification of erroneous entries from Data Bank with respect to 3.72 Ares of property, comprised in Survey. No 99/7-2 of Mulavukad Village, Ernakulam District, within a short period fixed by this Hon’ble Court."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P2 Form - 6 application filed by the petitioners under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short).

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to consider Ext.P2 within a time frame.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The 6th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P2 application to the 3rd respondent/Authorised O period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 3rd respondent/Authorised O to consider the Ext.P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 6th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report. I make it clear that the 3rd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

3. The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 3rd and 6th respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top