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) 5801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ROOPA M – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR RR KOZHIKODE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2107 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI. SUNILKUMAR M., SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

Court directs timely processing of revenue applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act.

Headnote:This Writ Petition is filed under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, seeking a writ of Mandamus for allowing the Form 6 application. The court directed the authorized officer to consider the application within three months based on the necessary report. The issues concerned the compliance and expeditious handling of the application for revenue corrections and the potential dispensation of vernacular translations as appropriate. The conclusion mandated compliance with the judgment's directives, emphasizing the need for timely processing.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks writ for revenue record corrections. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court seeks compliance and timely processing of applications. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

"I. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to pass orders allowing Form 6 application Exhibit P2, submitted by the petitioners and making necessary corrections in the revenue records in a time frame set by this Honourable court.

II. to pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

III. to pass an order to dispense off with the translation of documents in vernacular language”

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P2 Form - 6 application submitted 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.P2 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. P2 application to the 1st respondent/Authorised Officer 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 the Ext.P2 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 three months from the date of receipt of the report. I make it clear that the 1st 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 1st and 2nd 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