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) 6910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ABDUL RAHIMAN – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3802 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.C.T.SOMAN
For the Respondents: SRI. K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, GP

Authorities have a legal obligation to process applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules within a reasonable time frame.

Headnote:The petitioner filed an application in Form 5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which was not acted upon, thus necessitating judicial intervention. The Court found that the authorities have a legal duty to process the application timely. As a result, directions were given to the relevant officers to submit a report and make a decision in accordance with established timelines.

Table of Content
1. application for correction was filed but not acted upon. (Para 1 , 2)
2. legal duty to decide on applications exists. (Para 3)
3. directions given for timely decisions. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims that he had filed an application in Form 5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (for short ‘the Rules’), a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3.

2. According to the petitioner, though the application was filed on 01.04.2025 neither has a report been submitted by the Agricultural Officer nor has any decision been taken by the 1st respondent.

3. Form 5 application filed by the petitioner is a statutory application as per Rule 4(d) of the Rules. The competent authorities therefore, have a legal duty to consider the said application in accordance with law within a reasonable time. Hence, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to submit a report as per the Rules.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to take a decision on Ext.P3 application in a time bound manner.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to submit a report as contemplated under Rule 4(e) of the Rules, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pursuant to the receipt of the said report, the 1st respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P3 application within three months thereafter. The timeline specified above shall strictly be complied with by the respective officers.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

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