Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RADHAMMA VIJAYACHANDRAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2158 OF 2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.AVANEESH KOYIKKARA, SMT.MANJUSHA K.U., SHRI.ASHWIN SUNIL KUMAR, SHRI.FELIX JOHN
For the Respondents: Smt Deepa V
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks to address rejection of application under specific act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. emphasis on expeditious hearing and consideration of appeals. (Para 3) |
| 3. court issues directives regarding delay and proceedings. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P4 Order as unjust and illegal;
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exhibit P6, the Form 6 appeal, after strictly following the procedures prescribed in law, within a time frame of two months or such period as this Hon'ble Court may fix;
iii. Pass any other orders or directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice;”
2. A Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short), was rejected by the Authorised Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal and there is some delay in filing the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal is not considered. Hence this petition.
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 the 2nd respondent to consider the appeal within a time frame and also condone the delay in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Udayan Vasudevan v. District Collector, Trivandrum [2025 (2) KHC 103] . The direction to include the petitioner's property in the Data Bank as per Ext.P4 can be kept in abeyance till final orders are passed in the appeal.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The 2nd respondent is directed to condone the delay in filing Ext.P6 in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Udayan Vasudevan v. District Collector, Trivandrum [2025 (2) KHC
103] forthwith.
2. Once the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent will consider Ext.P6 appeal, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date on which the delay is condoned.
3. Till final orders are passed in Ext.P6, further proceedings based on Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
