Rejection of a Form-6 application cannot be based on hypothetical impacts; relevant criteria must be applied.

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 granted to the petitioner for conversion, it will result in promoting conversion in the nearby paddy fields, cannot be a reason for rejection of a Form-6 application and how the conversion will affect the environment is not stated in the rejection order. Further, there is no water channel in the property so that the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy field would be prevented due to change of nature of land. Therefore, none of the reasons stated in Ext.P6 are sustainable in the eye of law.

4. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside, with a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent/authorised o Ext.P3 application and allow the same. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1^st respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-