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) 3530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
GRACY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2879 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.VINU SASIDHARAN, SMT.K.ANILA, SHRI.AJITH PAUL THOMAS
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

The Court emphasizes timely administrative action in processing applications within stipulated periods.

Headnote:The Writ Petition seeks mandamus for review of records and action on Form-5. The petitioner argues for expedited consideration based on Ext P3 application. The Court permits a directed timeline for the 2nd respondent to act post-report from the 4th respondent. The petitioner is required to present pertinent documents for enforcement.

Table of Content
1. expedited review of land application (Para 1 , 2)
2. judicial directive on administrative responsibility (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

" i. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to call for all records in pursuant to the Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 records if just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

ii. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to consider and pass orders on Form-5 application under Ext.P3 submitted by the petitioner and remove the property of the petitioner covered in Ext P1 sale deed from the Data bank Register as expeditiously within a time frame fixed by this Hon’bel Court.

iii. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on application submitted by the petitioner under Ext.P3 after making the physical verification of the land and remove the land from data bank as expeditiously within a time frame fixed by this Hon’bel Court.

iv. Allow the Writ petition with costs."

[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 4th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P3 application to the 2nd 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 2nd 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 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two 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 2nd and 4th 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