Kerala High Court
Blessy Davis vs Deputy Collector (L.A) And Revenue ... on 23 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:78705
WP(C) NO. 38919 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38919 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
BLESSY DAVIS
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O DAVIS, NELLIPALLIKKARAN HOUSE, VASU PURAM,
MATTATHURKUNNU P.O, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680684
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SMT.PINKU MARIAM JOSE
SMT.NICHU WILLINGTON
SMT.K.M.FATHIMA
SHRI.H. KASHYAP SESHADRI
RESPONDENT/S:
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A) AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CHALKUDI TALUK, OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY THRISSUR,
PIN - 680307
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78705
WP(C) NO. 38919 OF 2025
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.38919 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of `Certiorari' or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling
forth the records culminated in the issuance of Ext
P3 Order and quash the same
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of `Mandamus' or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction,
commanding the respondent to reconsider Ext P2
application and pass orders in it, in accordance with
law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of
being heard.
iii. May dispense with filing translation of vernacular
documents.
iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction, as this
Hon'ble court deems fit and proper, to grant, in the
nature and course of the proceedings.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted by
2025:KER:78705
WP(C) NO. 38919 OF 2025
her 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 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
2025:KER:78705
WP(C) NO. 38919 OF 2025
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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P2 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)
2025:KER:78705
WP(C) NO. 38919 OF 2025
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
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 23.10.2025
Judgment dictated 23.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 23.10.2025
Final Judgment 24.10.2025
uploaded
2025:KER:78705
WP(C) NO. 38919 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38919/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
29.7.2025 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MATTATHUR
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 30.11.2024, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.6.2025
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS 4 IN NUMBER
SHOWING THE TREES STANDING IN THE
PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT P1
