Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
MOHANDAS – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER COLLECTORATE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner alleges inaction on application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court mandates compliance with statutory timelines. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court outlines decision-making process and deadlines. (Para 5) |
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.P4.
2. According to the petitioner, though the application was filed on 19.01.2026, neither has the 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 4th 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.P4 application in a time-bound manner.
5. Accordingly, there will
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
