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) 19784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JOSEPH ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40301 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY, SRI.VISAKH ANTONY, SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI, SMT.ALEENA SONY
For the Respondents: SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, S.C., THEKKUMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SRI. T.P SAJAN, SPL GP

Authority responsible for decision on land assignment must consider all claims and maintain the status quo pending resolution.

Headnote:The judgment relates to the Kerala Land Assignment Act and involves a petition for assigning forest land, where it was noted that the petitioners claimed possession and had not received a decision on their application due to a conflict with the Panchayat's claim. The court requires the relevant application to be decided with notice to all parties involved. The status quo is to be maintained during this period.

Table of Content
1. assessment of legal representation for the petitioners. (Para 1)
2. claim of possession and the conflict regarding land ownership. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. no documents presented by the panchayat to support its claim. (Para 5)
4. court directs decision-making on the application by the 6th respondent. (Para 6)

J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri. K.S. Bharathan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8, and Sri. T.P. Sajan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).

2. The 1st petitioner is stated to be in possession of 65 cents of forest land in Sy. No. 825/P of Thekkumkara Village, Thalappilly Taluk. According to the 1st petitioner, since he has been continuously carrying out various agricultural operations on the said extent of land, he submitted Ext. P1 application under the Kerala Land Assignment Act before the 6th respondent seeking assignment of the property.

3. However, the said application has not been disposed of, primarily due to the claim raised by the 7th respondent Panchayat, which contends that the property forms part of its Asset Register. The Panchayat has also taken the stand that the petitioners are not in possession of the said property.

4. Taking note of the rival submissions, this Court, by an order dated 26.11.2025, directed the 7th respondent Panchayat to produce documents, if any, evidencing the conveyance of the subject property in its favour, in support of its contention.

5. Today, Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8, upon instructions, submitted that as of now, no documents are available with the Panchayat to substantiate the contention recorded by this Court in its order dated 26.11.2025.

6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners’ application for assignment (Ext. P1), referred to above, requires to be considered and disposed of.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 6th respondent to take a decision on Ext. P1 application, after affording notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the 7th respondent, at any rate, within a period of four months. Till such time, the parties shall maintain the status quo.

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