Kerala High Court
Benny.V.T vs Deputy Collector (Lr), Thrissur on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:82888
WP(C) NO. 20111 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. 20111 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
BENNY.V.T.
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE, CHIRANELLUR,
CHIRANELLUR.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680501
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SHRI.BABU V.P.
SHRI.SHAHBAS AMAN C.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), THRISSUR
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
- 680003
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, CHOONDAL GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680502
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOONDAL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680502
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
CHOONDAL VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680502
2025:KER:82888
WP(C) NO. 20111 OF 2025
2
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE (KSREC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SMT.PREETHA K.K., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:82888
WP(C) NO. 20111 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.20111 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P4 order issued
by the 1st respondent, after calling for the records
leading to its issuance;
ii. petitioner also prays that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to dispense with production of translation of
the documents produced in vernacular language;
iii. issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
1st 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.
2025:KER:82888
WP(C) NO. 20111 OF 2025
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 or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules There is no independent finding regarding the nature
and character of the land as on the relevant date by the
authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has not
considered whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
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
2025:KER:82888
WP(C) NO. 20111 OF 2025
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.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 Form - 5 application in
accordance 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
2025:KER:82888
WP(C) NO. 20111 OF 2025
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
JV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 03.11.2025
Judgment dictated 03.11.2025
Draft Judgment placed 04.11.2025
Final Judgment 05.11.2025
uploaded
2025:KER:82888
WP(C) NO. 20111 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20111/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
9/4/2025 ISSUED FROM CHOONDAL VILLAGE
OFFICE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK
PUBLISHED VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED
25/1/2021 IN KERALA GAZETTE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S FORM-5
APPLICATION NO.1/2023/1717170 DATED
14/8/2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.254/2025 DATED
20/3/2025 OF 1ST RESPONDENT
