Timely consideration of applications by authorities is essential for upholding procedural rights.

Headnote:This Writ Petition is filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application under Act 28/2008. The court directs the third respondent to submit a report on the application within one month and the first respondent to consider it based on the report within four months. The matter addresses procedural compliance and timely response from the authorities involved.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for timely application consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's direction for procedural adherence. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

" i. issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the like nature direction or order commanding the 1^st Respondent to pass orders, after hearing the petitioner on Exhibit P-3 application of the Petitioner made in Form 5 under “ Act 28/2008 ” within a time frame that may be set by this Honorable Court;

ii. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;

iii. pass such other orders deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and that may be prayed hereafter."

[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.P3 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.P3 application within a time frame.

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

1. The 3^rd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext.P3 application to the 1^st respondent/Authorised O 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 1^st respondent/Authorised O to consider Ext.P3 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 3^rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four 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 1^st and 3^rd respondents for compliance.

Sd/-

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 26.02.2026

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6972 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 26-01-2026 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO PETITIONER Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 04-

08-2025 ISSUED BY THE KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 27-01-2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMP.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JRADHAKRISHNAN – AppellantVersusTHE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE – RespondentWP(C) NO. 6972 OF 2026

Timely consideration of applications by authorities is essential for upholding procedural rights.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RADHAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6972 OF 2026