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) 14400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
PALGHAT COSMOPOLITAN CLUB REGD. NO.160 OF 1989 – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD – Respondent
WP(C) NO.7041 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN, SMT.SHAMSEERA, C.ASHRAF, SHRI.WINSTON K.V, SMT.ANU JACOB, SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN, SHRI.VINCENT C. J.
For the Respondents: SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP, SMT.DEEPA V GP

The court establishes the need for expeditious consideration of applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, ensuring timely administrative action.

Headnote:Writ Petition filed under section 5 (4) (i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, requesting a mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider the application. The court directed the 3rd respondent to submit a report and the 1st respondent to consider the application based on that report within specified time frames. The court established the necessity for timely consideration of such applications under the prevailing Act. A judgment directing compliance with timelines established.

Table of Content
1. overview of the writ petition and initial requests. (Para 1)
2. discussion on the need for timely consideration of applications. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's directive for compliance with timelines. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit-P2 application dated 09.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent under section 5 (4) (i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble court; ii. To dispense with the production of the English translation of the documents in vernacular language; and iii. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems 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 3rd respondent is directed to submit the necessary report based on the Ext. P2 application to the 1st 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 1st 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 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two 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 1st and 3rd 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