Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30810
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Sealand Builders Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Collector (RR) – Respondent
WP(C) No. 17156 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R.Prathish
For the Respondents: Deepa V
A writ of mandamus can be issued to direct statutory authorities to resolve pending applications regarding property status within a time-bound manner when reports are already available.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the first respondent to process an application for the removal of property from a data bank. The court noted that a report from the third respondent was already pending regarding the property status. The central issue was whether the statutory authority should be directed to process the application within a specific timeframe. The court reasoned that since a report had already been submitted by the agricultural officer, there was no impediment to directing the first respondent to finalize the application in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of the application within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandating timely processing of statutory property applications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a of writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the 1strespondent to consider the Ext.P2 application of the petitioner and remove the entry of petitioner’s property from data Bank within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court.
ii) Dispense with filing of the translation of documents in Malayalam produced in the above writ petition.
iii) Pass such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case.
And iv) Allow the writ petition writ petition with cost. "
[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. The learned Government Pleader submitted that a report is already submitted by the 3rd respondent -
Agricultural Officer. If that is the case, there can be a direction to consider the Form-5 application, within a time frame.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The 1st respondent/Authorised O 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 three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 1st respondent for compliance.
