2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SULAIMAN U P – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5841 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.NIRMAL DAS P.
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
The petitioner's claim for timely processing of applications under specific legislation is upheld, mandating compliance within judicial timelines.
Headnote:This writ petition seeks a direction to process the Ext.P2 application filed under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The court finds merit in expediting the consideration of this application. It issues directives for necessary reporting and consideration within specified timeframes, ensuring proper compliance with the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for processing application under the act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court hears arguments for the petitioner and respondents (Para 3) |
| 3. judicial directive for expediting application processing (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the 2nd respondent to forthwith take up Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, process the same and pass orders on the same at the earliest at any rate within a time frame stipulated by this Honorable court and thus secure ends of justice to the petitioner.
(ii) Allow the petitioner to recover the full costs incurred for the institution and conduct of the writ petition (civil) from the respondents (iii) Dispense with production of English translation of vernacular documents "
[SIC]
2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P2 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.P2 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.P2 application to the 2nd respondent/Authorised O period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2. The 2nd respondent/Authorised O consider the Ext.P2 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 2nd 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 2nd and 3rd respondents for compliance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AJ
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED
Judgment reserved
NA
Date of Judgment
17.02.2026
Judgment dictated
17.02.2026
Draft judgment placed
18.02.2026
Final Judgment uploaded
19.02.2026
22.05.2025 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 17.01.2026 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT