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) 3534

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
DIJU PAUL VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R) FOR MANNARKKAD TALUK EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2988 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN, SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF, SHRI.WINSTON K.V, SMT.ANU JACOB, SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN, SHRI.VINCENT C. J.
For the Respondents: SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

Timely processing of applications under land conservation legislation is mandated by the court.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks a writ mandamus under section 27 A of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, for timely consideration of an application. The court directs the respondents to process the petitioner's application expediently. The focus is on compliance within stipulated time frames for both consideration and reporting of findings.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks mandamus for application processing (Para 1 , 2)
2. counsel requests timely directions for consideration (Para 3)
3. court mandates timely action from authorities (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

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

" i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit-P2, application (in form number 7) dated 03.01.2026 submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent under section 27 A of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 for using the land for other purposes within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble court."

[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.P2 Form –7 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.P2 application within a time frame.

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

1. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to application to the 1st respondent/Authorised Officer, as 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.P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the reports received from the 2nd and 3, submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P2 respondents, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four 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, 2nd and 3rd respondents for compliance.

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