JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P10 order, whereby the Form-5 as well as the Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected, relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and also the inspection report from the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein it is stated that in the BTR, the property has been termed as ‘Nilam’ and in the data bank, the property has been described as ‘partially reclaimed clay mined area’ and that only a portion of the property was filled up and the balance land is seen water logged.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. A perusal of Ext.P10 order would reveal that the reason for rejection is that in the data bank the property is described as ‘partially reclaimed clay mined area’ and further that only a portion of the property has been converted and the balance portion is seen as water logged. The property is lying low and there is water logging in the property are not reasons available for the authority for rejecting the Form 5 applicati