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) 14094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RABIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7520 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MANSOOR ALI
For the Respondents: SMT. DEEPA V

The court mandates timely processing of land conversion applications under specific state regulations.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the petitions under Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008, which seeks the conversion of land in revenue records. The court directed the concerned authorities to consider the application expeditiously. The issues involved relate to procedural compliance regarding land conversion. Findings emphasized the need for timely action by the authorities.

Result: The writ petition was disposed of with specific directions to the respondents.

Table of Content
1. rights of land conversion application under local regulations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court's directive for timely processing. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to allow the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules , 2008 in respect of the land comprised in Exhibit P1 as expeditiously as possible.

(ii) To declare that the Petitioner is entitled to get conversion of the nature of land in the revenue records within a period as stipulated by this court.

(iii) Please to dispense with the production of translation of documents which is produced as Exhibit- P1 and Exhibit – P2.

(iv) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

[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 6th respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P2 application to the 3rd 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 3rd respondent/Authorised O directed to consider Ext. P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 6th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months 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 the 3rd and 6th 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