Procedural fairness requires that parties affected by administrative decisions must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before such decisions can be validly made.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 proceedings. Petitioner has also sought a consequential direction to the 4^th respondent to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner has also sought for setting aside order No.19581/D3/16/Rev., dated 20.03.2017, referred to in Ext.P6.

2. It is averred that the petitioner is in possession of 2 acres and 13 cents of property in Resurvey No.313/3 of Tanur Village, obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed executed in 1980. The property has been a coconut garden for more than 45 years, and all trees are yielding. Residential buildings are constructed in the surroundings by various persons. The surrounding properties are also not paddy fields, but garden lands. There is a road constructed by the Panchayath separating the plot into two pieces. While so, the 4^th respondent on 21.04.2007 issued Ext.P3 notice under Clause 7 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 stating that the property of the petitioner was under paddy cultivation during 3 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 and is attempted to be converted into garden land and hence the petitioner was directed to cultivate the land with paddy within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 3^rd respondent Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner by Ext.P4, remitted the matter back to the 4^th respondent to take a final decision in the matter. While issuing Ext.P4 order of remand, the report of the Additional Tahsildar dated 16.02.2008 was also taking into consideration wherein it is stated that in the subject property, there are coconut trees aged more than 20 years and a tamarind tree aged 15 years and further that, paddy cultivation has not been carried out in the property at least for a period of 20 years. After the remand, the 4th respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, conducted a site inspection and it was found that there are about 200 coconut trees aged more than 20 years in the property a tamarind tree, a well and a pump house and no paddy cultivation has been conducted in the property or the neighbouring properties for years. On the basis of the same, the 4th respondent found that it is not practical to restore the land to its original condition and direct cultivation of paddy, and hence it was directed as per Ext.P5 order to change the nature of the land as 'garden land' in the village records. Though Ext.P5 order was issued on 29.07.2010, to the surprise of the petitioner, Ext.P6 letter dated 03.03.2022 was issued by the 4th respondent, intimating that the Government, as per the order dated 20.03.2017, directed to set aside Ext.P5 order and therefore, the petitioner was directed to appear before the 4^th respondent. Petitioner would submit that Ext.P6 letter was served on the petitioner only on 17.03.2022, ie., after the date fixed for the hearing, and therefore, he could not appear before the 4th respondent. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply before the 4th respondent, stating that it was after conducting site inspection and an enquiry by the then Revenue Divisional Officer and Additional Tahsildar, and evaluating other evidence, Ext.P5 order was issued and therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the contention that the petitioner has illegally converted the land. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order was issued, setting aside Ext.P5 order. Petitioner would contend that Ext.P8 order was issued without affording an opportunity to be heard and solely relying on the Government Order dated 20.03.2017. Petitioner would contend that in the proceedings bef