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) 12609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Kuryan – Appellant
Versus
The Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6726 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.P.Jinish Paul, Smt.Sneha V.
For the Respondents: GP Smt Deepa V

The Court establishes the necessity for timely consideration of administrative applications under established procedural laws and directives.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of Ext.P2 application within one month, to issue further orders for reassessment of tax, and to allow for the production of vernacular documents. The Court orders the 2nd Respondent to report based on Ext.P2 application within a month for the Authorised Officer's timely consideration. The Court finds that compliance within the provided time frame is necessary.

Table of Content
1. the requirement for the timely processing of applications. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the necessity of hearing both sides before a decision. (Para 3)
3. the court's direction for compliance within a month. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ, Order or direction to the 1st respondent to dispose Ext.P2 application (Form 5) submitted by the petitioner within 1 month.

ii. To direct the 1st respondent to issue further orders to the Tahasildar to make reassessment of the tax and to make appropriate changes in the revenue records by the Village Officer as provided under R.12(10).

iii. To dispense with the production of English translation of documents in Vernacular languages.

iv. To grant such other reliefs that are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(SIC)

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P2 Form – 5 application within a time frame.

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 application 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, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, 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 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 one month from the date of receipt of the report.

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

2 for compliance.

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