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) 30804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Xavier V Pulickal – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer Under The Paddy Land Act – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17108 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saigi Jacob Palatty
For the Respondents: Deepa V

The court may direct statutory authorities to resolve pending applications for land use conversion within a fixed timeframe when such applications are in order and required by law.

Headnote:This petition concerns a request for conversion of land use under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to process a Form 6 application seeking permission for land conversion under Section 27A, and subsequent reassessment of land tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act. The court determined that the application should be processed within a specified timeframe, ensuring the statutory procedures are observed by the relevant authorities. The central issue is whether the statutory authority is obligated to consider a pending application for change of land nature. The court reasoned that in the interest of justice, applications submitted in accordance with the law should be adjudicated without delay by the competent officials, provided they are in order. The court observed that such matters require a report from the local village officer before a final decision is reached. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to submit the necessary report within one month and the first respondent to finalize the application within four months from the receipt of said report.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks judicial intervention to process a statutory land conversion application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs authorities to process pending statutory applications within a fixed timeline. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

"i. To issue a writ of mandamus order or other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P2, Form 6 application, numbered as 32/2026/762900, dated 23.04.2026, under Section 27 A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 forthwith.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or direction to the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to reassess the property under section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act consequent to the orders passed by the 1st respondent on Ext. P2 application and to make additional entries in the BTR showing the nature of the property as Garden land/ Purayidam.

iii. Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language;

iv. To issue any other writs order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to consider Ext.P2 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.P2 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 within a 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.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 four 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.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top