Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
NAUSHAD.T.O. – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging rejection of land application. (Para 1) |
| 2. criteria for rejecting applications must be substantiated. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court orders reconsideration within two months. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order, whereby the Form-6 application submitted by him has been rejected, for three reasons, (a) if the conversion is permitted, it will promote others to do the same; (b) the conversion will affect the environment and (c) the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy field will be affected. The petitioner submits that the subject property is not included in the data bank, as evident from Ext.P1, though the property has been classified as ‘nilam’ in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner submits that the reasons stated for rejecting the application as per Ext.P6 are not available for rejecting an application filed in Form-6.
2. Heard both sides.
3. This Court in George Varghese v. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] has considered the parameters to be looked into by the Revenue Divisional Officer while considering a Form-6 application. Further, one of the reasons stated for the rejection that, if permission is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
