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) 14386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ARJUN RAJEEV – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6917 OF 2026



Court mandates timely consideration for a writ application regarding land classification, reinforcing procedural compliance.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider an application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The court orders timely consideration of this application. The issues revolve around lawful property classification and procedural compliance by authorities. The final ruling emphasizes the need for expedient processing of the application as per legal provisions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner requests consideration of application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court mandates timely handling of the application. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit.P3 application after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner;

ii) Declare that the property of the petitioner having an extent of 1.69 Ares of land in Block No.8 of Vazhakkala Village of Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District is not a paddy land;

iii) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case;

iv) Dispense with the production of English translation of the vernacular Exhibits produced in the Writ Petition."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P3 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.P3 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.P3 application to the 1st respondent/Authorised O period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. The 1st respondent/Authorised O to consider the Ext.P3 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 two months from the date of receipt of the report. I make it clear that the 1st 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 1st and 3rd respondents for compliance.

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG

Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 24.02.2026
Judgment dictated 24.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 25.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 27.02.2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6917 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FOR 1.69 ARES OF LAND Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE FORM

5 APPLICATION Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY THE FORM 6 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE

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