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) 14133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
I.P. MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26470 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.N.A.SHAJI, SRI.T.X.SHAM JOSEPH, SRI.S.SUNIL KUMAR, SRI.B.JITHU, SMT.LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
For the Respondents: GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Court upheld the petitioner's right to seek relief regarding land use despite the current auction process.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a direction to the District Collector to dispose of a representation concerning an auction by the 3rd respondent Samajam involving the petitioner's land. The court noted the specific grievance about the inclusion of the petitioner's paddy land in the auction. The court concluded by closing the writ petition but left the petitioner with the right to approach the authority again if needed. Issues framed included the concern over property rights and procedural compliance. The court emphasized the right to seek further relief as appropriate. The writ petition is closed.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2026 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the

1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P3 representation within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. The specific grievance raised by the petitioner is that the

3rd respondent Samajam is attempting to auction the conduct of prawn cultivation in the land owned by the petitioner also, and the demand to exclude his paddy land from auction was not considered by the 3rd respondent. It is in the said circumstance that Ext.P3 complaint was preferred before the 1st respondent District Collector.

Going by the contentions in Ext.P3, petitioner has approached the District Collector when the 3rd respondent Samajam decided to auction the prawn cultivation including the property of the petitioner also. It is seen that this auction is for a particular year, therefore the writ petition is closed, leaving open the right of the petitioner to approach the competent authority including the 1st respondent by filing appropriate complaint if any further grievance substist in future.

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