Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Navas – Appellant
Versus
Sub Collector – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19231 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.M.Mohammed Iquabal
For the Respondents: Vidya Kuriakose
The court directed the statutory authorities to expeditiously process and decide upon land reclassification applications filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, ensuring compliance with administrative obligations within a prescribed timeframe.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the consideration of an application filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 seeking removal of the property from the data bank. The court observed that the petitioner is entitled to a time-bound consideration of the application filed. The primary issue concerns the failure of the authorities to process the application seeking the reclassification of the land status in the data bank. The court reasoned that in accordance with the statutory framework, all pending applications, once submitted in the prescribed form and in order, must be considered by the designated authorities within an expeditious timeframe. The court allowed the writ petition directing the authorities to submit the necessary reports and pass appropriate orders on the application within the stipulated time periods.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayer for time-bound consideration of pending statutory application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court intervention to enforce administrative duty for property data bank updates. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P2 application to remove the property from data bank, within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.
b) Pass an order dispensing with the production of English translation of vernacular document at the time of filing of Writ Petition. and c) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time “ [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.P2 application submitted in Form 5 under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. After hearing both sides, I think that prayer can be allowed.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The 2nd 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 Officer is directed to consider Ext. P2 application (if it is pending and if it is in order) based on the report received from the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four 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 2nd respondents for compliance.
