Rejection of Form 6 application without valid reasons contravenes procedural requirements and established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext P10 order and set aside the same.

ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, appropriate order quashing the Ext P10 order and allow the Exhibit P 5 - Form 6 application of the Petitioner.

iii) Petitioner also prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the vernacular language.

iv) Provide cost of the proceedings."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner, along with others are the owner in possession of 17.81 Ares of property in Block No.1 of Survey Nos.320/5APT 11 of South Trikkaripur Village, Hosdurg Taluk of Kasargod District. The property is not included in the data bank, but it is recorded as 'Nilam' in the Revenue Records is the submission. The petitioner submitted a Form - 6 application, and it was rejected as per Ext.P7. Petitioner filed an appeal against the same, and the same was rejected as per Ext.P10. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P10. After narrating the facts and contention of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority simply rejected the appeal, stating that after inspecting the property, it was found that it is water logged area and the property is not converted land. It is also stated that the property is situated in a low-lying area. Thereafter, the appeal is dismissed. This is not the manner in which a Form - 6 application is to be considered, and the appeal is to be considered. This Court in George Varghese V. District Collector [ 2023 (7) KHC 93 ] this court considered observed like this:

“5. R.12 of the R.2008 deals with the procedure for change of nature of unnotified land, as provided in S.27A of the Act 2008. R.12(4) provides that on receipt of an application under Form 6 as provided in R.12 of the R.2008, the Revenue Divisional OfÏcer (RDO) shall forward the application to the Village OfÏcer concerned and the Village OfÏcer, in turn, shall conduct an enquiry on the application and submit a report before the RDO and R.12(5) mandates that the Village OfÏcer shall also report whether if a change of nature of the land is permitted, it will cause any obstruction to the free flow of water to the nearby paddy fields, if any. The Rules further provide that if the extent of the property is more than 20.23 Ares, the report of the Agricultural OfÏcer should also be obtained by the RDO as to the effectiveness of water conservancy measures that the applicant is proposing to implement in the property. A perusal of the Act and the Rules, 2008 reveals that the only aspect that should be ascertained by the RDO while considering a Form 6 application seeking permission to change the nature of the unnotified land is whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land. A perusal of Ext P10 order reveals that there is no adverse finding by the RDO that the reclamation will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field and whether it will adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops in the adjoining lands. In Ext P24 appellate order passed by the 1st respondent there is a specific finding that there is no paddy cultivation in any of the nearby properties. In spite of the said finding, the application has been rejected by Ext P10 order based on the report of the Village OfÏcer that the property is lying three feet below the road level and there is water logging in the property and further that the property has not been converted prior to