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) 5716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
HARILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25771 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.BHANU THILAK, SHRI.VISHNU.R, SHRI.S.R.PRASANTH
For the Respondents: SMT. PREETHA K K

Failure to act on directives from statutory bodies violates legal obligations under the relevant act.

Headnote:The court analyzed the provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, addressing the petitioner's grievance regarding the failure of the Local Level Monitoring Committee to exclude his property from the databank as per Exhibit P4. The finding determined the necessity for lawful implementation of Exhibit P4. The principal issue framed was whether the inaction constitutes a violation of the petitioner's rights. The court asserted that failure to act upon the directions of Exhibit P4 violates the legal obligations under the Act. Therefore, the court commanded the second respondent to implement the Exhibits within three months.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for removal from databank. (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to implement Exhibit P4 and exclude the property of the petitioner from the databank by notifying the same.

ii. issue such other order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper to grant."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the 2nd respondent in carrying out the removal of the petitioner’s land from the data bank and notifying the same even after the 2nd respondent finds that the property of the petitioner is liable to be removed from the data bank. Hence this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. There is no dispute to the fact that Ext.P4 became final.

If that be the case, the 2nd respondent has to implement the same in accordance with the law.

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

The 2nd respondent is directed to implement Exts.P4 and P5, and do the needful in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

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