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) 5185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
M RADHA – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3444 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
For the Respondents: SMT DEEPA V

The court emphasized the importance of timely processing of land tenure changes under specific legislative acts.

Headnote:This case concerns a Writ Petition under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The petitioner sought mandamus for consideration of an application to change land tenure. The court directed the respondents to process the application expeditiously, affirming that the second respondent could act in accordance with the law. The relevant issue was the timely consideration of the petitioner's application by the authorized officer. Ultimately, the court ruled that the necessary steps must be taken to address the petitioner's request in a structured timeframe.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for land tenure alteration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs timely processing of application. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction to 2nd respondent to pass orders of Ext. P4 by extending the exemption provided under Schedule under Rule 12(9) of the Rules;

ii)Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd and 4th respondents to take appropriate steps to correct/change the nature/tenure of the petitioner property in the Revenue Records and BTR as that of residential Property/Purayidam.

iii)To dispense with the production of the English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language;

iv)Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P4 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.P4 within a time frame.

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

1. The 3rd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on Ext.P4 Form-6 application to the 2nd respondent / Authorised Officer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 2nd respondent / Authorised O directed to consider Ext.P4 Form-6 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