Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Sobhana Sudhakaran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17583 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avaneesh Koyikkara, Manjusha K.U., Ashwin Sunil Kumar, Nandana Suresh
For the Respondents: Vidya Kuriakose
A court may issue a writ of mandamus directing the relevant authority to timely adjudicate a pending application for land reclassification in the data bank if prescribed procedures under the state conservation laws are met.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the inclusion of their land in the Data Bank as paddy land and a mandamus to direct the authorities to consider a Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner contended that the land does not qualify as paddy or wetland as defined by the statute. The court, noting that the statutory application was pending, determined that a disposal of the petition with a direct mandate for procedural compliance was appropriate. The central issue is the timely consideration of the application filed to modify land-use status in the statutory Data Bank. The court’s ratio decidendi rests on the principle that where an application is pending before the competent authority specifically tasked with determining land classification under the relevant statutes, the court shall direct the authority to process the same in accordance with the law within a stipulated time frame to ensure administrative fairness. The court directed the third respondent to consider the Form 5 application, provided it is pending and in order, based on the relevant expert reports within a period of one month from the receipt of the judgment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayer for rectification of land records within the data bank. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. judicial directive to statutory authorities to process pending land reclassification applications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“i. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P3 to the extent to which the land of the petitioner is included as paddy land in the Data Bank prepared by the 4th respondent;
ii. To declare the land in question does not fall under the purview of a paddy land or wet land defined in the Act and therefore liable to be removed from the Data Bank;
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exhibit P4, the Form 5 application to removing the entries regarding the petitioner’s property from the Data Bank, after strictly following the procedures prescribed in law and take steps to publish an erratum notification in Kerala Gazette for the same, within a time frame of two months or such period as this Hon’ble Court may fix;
iv. Pass any other orders or directions that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice;
v. Dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language; And vi. Award cost “ [sic]
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P4 application submitted in Form 5 under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
3. The Government Pleader submitted that, as per the online status, Form-5 application is pending before the authorised officer. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application, in the light of the report received from the 1st respondent.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
5. After hearing both sides, I think that prayer can be allowed.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The 3rd respondent/Authorised Officer is directed to consider the Ext.P4 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that the 3rd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
2. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this Writ Petition with exhibits, before the 3rd respondent for compliance.
