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) 3838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL JALEEL MANGALATH – Appellant
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1892 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For the Respondents: GP SRI DEEPA V

The court directs prompt consideration of statutory review petitions while staying further proceedings based on disputed orders.

Headnote:Statute Analysis - The writ petition seeks relief under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. Facts - The petition requests to direct the competent respondent to consider the statutory revision petition and stay an impugned order. Findings of Court - The court allows the prayer for a direction to consider the revision. Issues - The main question is the mandate to consider the statutory revision. Ratio Decidendi - The court emphasizes the need for an expeditious hearing of the revision. Result - The 6th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 revision within three months and keep proceedings based on Ext.P1 in abeyance.

Table of Content
1. seeking legal review under statutory provisions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. directions for expeditious processing of the revision. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

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

" 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the competent respondent among respondent Nos. 1 and 6 to consider and dispose the statutory revision petition submitted by the petitioner along with stay petition within a reasonable period which this honorable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

2. Direct the second respondent not to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of exhibit.P1 impugned order till the final disposal of the above case."

[SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ex.P2 by the 6th respondent, and till then to keep in abeyance Ext.P1.

3. Heard the Government Pleader also.

4. After hearing both sides, I think that prayer can be allowed.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 6th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 revision, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. Till final orders are passed in Ext.P2 revision, further proceedings based on Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance.

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