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) 4180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
NASEEMA M.A. – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2914 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFFI
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

The court mandates timely consideration of applications under statutory frameworks, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.

Headnote:This Writ Petition seeks a Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The court orders that the third respondent submit a report based on Ext.P3 within a month and the second respondent consider the application within four months. The petitioner must provide a certified copy of the judgment for compliance.

Table of Content
1. relief sought for processing statutory application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. hearing of counsel for both parties. (Para 3)
3. court directs compliance timelines for application process. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

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

" (i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 1st Respondent or the Authorized o Section 2(xvA) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P3 Application in accordance with law within the shortest time period as possible.

(ii) Allow the Writ petition with costs."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P3 Form - 6 application filed by the petitioner 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 petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to consider Ext.P3 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 2nd respondent/Authorised O period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 2nd respondent/Authorised O to consider the 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 four months from the date of receipt of the report. I make it clear that the 2nd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

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 3rd 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