Kerala High Court
Play City Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:83281
WP(C) NO. 40772 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025/12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40772 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PLAY CITY AMUSEMENT PARK PVT. LTD.
EAST FORT P.O. THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, MARTIN JOSE, AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF
JOSE, NELLISSERY HOUSE, NADATHARA VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680005
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
SMT.NIMISHA ANTONY
SHRI.JAYASANKAR R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680684
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
- 680684
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUSR DISTRICT, PIN -
680684
2025:KER:83281
WP(C) NO. 40772 OF 2025
2
5 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AGENCY AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (KSREC)
VIKAS BHAVAN, C.BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR,, PIN -
695033
BY ADV. SMT DEEPA V, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:83281
WP(C) NO. 40772 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.40772 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ direction or order by call for the records
leading to the issuance of exhibit P2 order issued by the
fifth respondent and set aside the same as illegal and
against the provisions of law.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to the fifth
respondent to consider and dispose the application
under form 5 submitted by the petitioner afresh and
thereby issue an order directing to remove the entry
regarding the land of petitioner from the data bank after
giving an opportunity to the petitioner for personal
hearing in the subject matter and only after adhering the
guidelines stated in Kerala Conservation of Paddy land
and Wet Land act 2008 and its rules to keep a property
in the data bank and after verifying the satellite image
and report from the sixth respondent within a reasonable
period which this honourable court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the
case." [SIC]
2025:KER:83281
WP(C) NO. 40772 OF 2025
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
passed by the 5th respondent rejecting the Form-5
application submitted by him under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules', for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner
is that the authorised officer has not considered the
contentions of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused the impugned order. I
am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer
has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The
impugned order was passed by the authorised officer
solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
There is no indication in the order that the authorised
officer has directly inspected the property. Moreover, the
authorised officer has not considered whether the
exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the
surrounding paddy fields.
2025:KER:83281
WP(C) NO. 40772 OF 2025
5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433], observed that the
competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie
and character of the land and its suitability for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive
criteria to determine whether the property merits
exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not
in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in
the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 5th respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Form - 5 application in accordance
2025:KER:83281
WP(C) NO. 40772 OF 2025
with the law. The authorised officer shall either
conduct a personal inspection of the property or,
alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in
accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the
cost of the petitioner, if not already called for.
3. If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the
date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally
inspect the property, the application shall be
considered and disposed of within two months
from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
Mn
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 03.11.2025
Judgment dictated 03.11.2025
Draft Judgment placed 04.11.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 05.11.2025
2025:KER:83281
WP(C) NO. 40772 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40772/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
16.4.2025 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
