The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative decisions, mandating that all affected parties be given an opportunity to be heard.

JUDGMENT :

(AMIT RAWAL, J.)

Present writ appeals are directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 16.12.2024 disposing of two writ petitions; Writ Petition No.20783 of 2020 filed by the appellants in W.A.205 of 2025 and W.P(C) No.21684 of 2020 by the appellant in W.A.1157 of 2025. In both the writ petitions, common exhibits were challenged but with different numbers. Exts.P9 dated 24.09.2020, P14 dated 22.11.2019 and P15 dated 12.08.2020 have been challenged in W.P(C).20783 of 2020 whereas in the other writ petition bearing No.21684 of 2020 also the same orders were challenged by exhibiting them as Ext.P21, P19 and P20 respectively.

2. Respondent No.11 (in W.P(C).20783 of 2020) submitted an application dated 19.03.2014 under Rule 6(5) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Burial Rules 1998’, for short) for construction of a vault Cemetery, on a land with an extent of 0.44 Ares situated in Re-survey No.428/5 of Mattoor Village Aluva Taluk, to the Panchayat, which was forwarded to the Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer. The said application was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 13.09.2016 Ext.P8 on the ground that the land, in the revenue records, was shown as Nilam (paddy land). Realizing that the land was Nilam, an application dated 25.09.2017 under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, was submitted to the Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for conversion of the land.

3. The Sub Collector/RDO considered the application by seeking a report of Village Officer dated 20.12.2017 and of the Agricultural Officer, Kalady dated 02.09.2019, ordered removal of 9.40 ares of land comprising in Re-survey No.428/5 in Block No.27 from the data bank permitting for non-agricultural purposes subject to the imposition of the following conditions:

(i) would not reclaim the nearby water bodies, wetland and paddy land and would not cause any obstruction to the paddy cultivation.

(ii) Free flow of water in the property involved in the application owing to the existence of natural channels will be retained.

(iii) In case of any arrears of water tax shall be remitted.

4. Since the first attempt to construct the cemetery vault was rejected as per the reasoning assigned in the order Ext.P8 dated 13.09.2016, another application Ext.R11(e) dated 25.11.2019 was submitted for raising of the construction, which was rejected on 28.12.2019. The ground of rejection was that once there is already a rejection, there is no provision of review. Under Rule 6(10) of the Burial Rules, 1998 affected parties are also at liberty to assail the order before the competent government within a period of thirty(30) days. Having left with no other choice, appeal was preferred, by that time period of three(3) years had already elapsed, from the date of dismissal of the application dated 19.03.2016, on 13.09.2016.

4. Government, Vide Ext.P9 granted the permission after hearing the objectors i.e., the petitioners who are claiming to be the residents of the area, though at a far away place according to the order. The said order along with the order of the Government were assailed in the writ petition No.20783 of 2020 by the petitioners on various grounds which are enumerated in short that;

(I) Owing to the promulgation of the Kerala Conservation of the Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Act, 2017 dated 25.09.2017 could not have been entertained as Section 3A was already in vogue for entertaining the application for conversion of the Paddy Land into non-agricultural or notified land.

(II) The appeal preferred before the Government was hopelessly time barred.

(III) The application could have been entertained only under the amended provisions of the 2008 Act incorporated with effect for 30.09.2017 i.e., under Section 27A of the 2018 Amended Act.

5. Respondents contested the writ petition by filing the counter affidavit and submitted