Kerala High Court
Delson Davis.P vs The Deputy Collector(Rr) on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18679 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DELSON DAVIS.P.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. P.A.DEVASSI, PELLISSERY HOUSE,
AMMADAM P.O., PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT ST.FRANCIS CONVENT ROAD,
LOURDPURAM, EAST FORT P.O.
THRISSUR, PIN - 680005
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SHRI.JOGGY MATHUNNI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(RR)
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
PARALAM KRISHI BHAVAN, PARALAM,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680563
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.PREETHA K.K
WP(C) NO.18679 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:69201
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.18679 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:69201
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
51.30 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 147/10
and 147/9 in Paralam Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered
under Exts. P1 and P2 settlement deeds. The property
is a converted plot and unsuitable for paddy
cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and
included it in the data bank maintained under the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008 and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and
'Rules", for brevity). To exclude the property from the
data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P7
application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P8 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying
on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under
2025:KER:69201
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is
devoid of any independent finding regarding the nature
and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 --
the date the Act came into force. The impugned order,
therefore, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including 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
2025:KER:69201
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- 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.
5. A reading of Ext.P8 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. 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. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
finding whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light
2025:KER:69201
of the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was
passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the
law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is
vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind,
and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised
officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5
application as per the procedure prescribed under the
law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P8 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P7 application in accordance with 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.
iii. If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the date of
2025:KER:69201
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.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/17.09.25
2025:KER:69201
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18679/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.747/1/12 OF SRO, THRISSUR
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.748/1/12 OF SRO, THRISSUR
Exhibit P3 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY COVERED
BY EXTS.P1 AND P2
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.838/1/14
DATED 06.03.2014
Exhibit P5 A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY WHICH
WOULD SHOW A ROAD PASSING THROUGH THE
MIDDLE
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
LLMC, ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER
DATED 29.01.2005 ISSUED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 26.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1392/24 DATED
15.10.2024, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
