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) 6401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABHILASH – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3688 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.MANAVI MURALEEDHARAN, SMT.ANJANA K.P.
For the Respondents: SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR GP

Court mandates timely consideration of applications under statutory provisions.

Headnote:The writ petition requests the Court to issue a mandamus directing specific respondents to consider and act on an application per Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008. The petition aims for timely action on Ext.P5 and waiving translation of documents. The Court directs respondents to submit reports and pass orders accordingly. The final outcome includes clear directives accompanied by compliance requirements.

Table of Content
1. writ petition's prayer and context. (Para 1 , 2)
2. hearing parties' arguments. (Para 3)
3. court's directive on timely action. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the first respondent and third respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 application in accordance with law within the shortest time period possible.

ii. To dispense with filing of the translation of Vernacular Documents.

iii. Allow the Writ petition with costs.

iv. Grant such other further reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P5 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.P5 within a time frame.

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

1. The 3rd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P5 application to the 1st respondent/Authorised O 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.P5 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 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 respondents 1 and 3 for compliance.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE JV

Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 30.01.2026
Judgment dictated 30.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 30.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 31.01.2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 3688 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1785/2025 DATED 6.10.2025 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.

KL09050205287/2025 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16-

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