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) 14082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
VENUGOPALAN M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7361 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN, SRI.R.PRADEEP KUMAR, SMT.NAMITHA GEORGE, SMT.STENEY K.A.
For the Respondents: SR GP, SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

The court emphasizes timely administrative compliance with statutory applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, mandating a structured response timeframe.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks reliefs related to the consideration of an Ext.P3 Form 6 application under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The court directed the 5th respondent to report on Ext.P3 and for the 2nd respondent to consider the application within specified timelines. The decision underscores the importance of timely administrative action in compliance with statutory obligations.

Table of Content
1. judgment concludes with writ disposal. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1.Issue the writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P.3 Form 6 application within a short reasonable time frame.

2.Mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to change the classification of property covered by Ext.P.1 document as Dry/Garden land in revenue records forthwith based on Ext.P.2. 3.Declare that the property covered by Ext.P.1 is liable to classified as Dry/garden land in revenue records based on Ext.P.2 and second respondent is liable to consider Ext.P.3 form 6 application.

4.Such other relief that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case;

5. Dispense with the production of English translation of the vernacular Exhibits produced in the Writ Petition [ c ].” [SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P3 Form-6 application filed by the petitioners 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 petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to consider Ext.P3 within a time frame.

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

1. The 5th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on Ext.P3 Form-6 application to the 2nd respondent / Authorised Officer within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 2nd respondent / Authorised O directed to consider Ext.P3 Form-6 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three 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 petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 2nd and 5th respondents for compliance.

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