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) 4183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SHENJUMON M M – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3011 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, SMT.GOPIKA ANIL
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

The court emphasized the timely processing of applications by authorities in administrative matters.

Headnote:The writ petition seeks a mandamus directing the first respondent to process the petitioner's Form 5 application in a timely manner and to declare that the petitioner's property is not paddy land. The court found merit in directing a time frame for considering the application. The issues presented were whether the application is valid and if the property classification held by the respondent is correct. The court's reasoning emphasized the need for timely administration of justice. The respondents are instructed to process the application based on the report from the second respondent within specified time limits.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's requests for processing application. (Para 1)
2. counsel seeks timely direction. (Para 2)
3. court hears both sides. (Para 3)
4. court directs timely action on application. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1 Form 5 application of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to remove petitioner’s property from data bank .

iii. Declare that the property of the petitioner’s property having an extent of 4.65 Ares of property lying in Survey No.341/ of Chelamattom Village in Kunnathunad Taluk in Block No. 8, Ernakulam District. is not a paddy land.

iv. issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

v. Dispense with the production of English translation of the vernacular Exhibits produced in the Writ Petition [ c ]. (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.P1 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.P1 application within a time frame.

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

1. The 2nd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P1 application to the 1st 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 1st respondent/Authorised O to consider Ext.P1 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 2nd 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 respondents 1 and

2 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