Due process, including notice and hearing, must be observed in administrative decisions affecting property classifications to uphold legal rights.

JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 25.29 Ares of property in Survey No.393/2/2 of Njeezhoor Village in Kottayam District as per Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the petitioners, pursuant to Ext.P3 decision of the survey officer and after re-survey, the nature of the existing property of the 1st petitioner was corrected as 'Purayidam' in the revenue records including the Basic Tax Register (BTR). The 1st petitioner has been paying the basic tax at the rate fixed for 'Purayidam'. The 1st petitioner later settled an extent of 12.14 Ares out of the property in favour of his son, the 2nd petitioner, as per Ext.P4 settlement deed dated 28.03.2018 for the purpose of construction of a residential house. The petitioners submitted application for mutation and when the 1st petitioner made attempt to remit the basic tax for the property at the rate fixed for 'Purayidam', the petitioners were informed that the entry 'Purayidam' in the BTR was revised as 'Nilam' by Ext.P8 proceedings. According to the petitioners, the revision in the entry in the BTR is effected by the respondents without notice to the 1st petitioner and ignoring Ext.P3 decision of the survey officer which forms part of Ext.P8 and under the pretext of an error caused during resurvey. Pursuant to Ext.P8, corresponding entries were made in the BTR as evidenced by Ext.P9 and the 2nd respondent Tahsildar has issued Ext.P10 order directing the Village Officer to effect appropriate corrections against subject properties as ‘Nilam’ from that of ‘Purayidam’ in all related records. The petitioners rely on Ext.P11 certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer to state that the property is not included in the Data Bank.

The petitioners contend that, since the property is included as unnotified land, they are now induced to invoke the provisions under 27A of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (28 of 2008) and Rules framed thereunder, which causes substantial prejudice to them. Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to quash Ext.P8, the revised entry in Ext.P9 BTR, and Ext.P10 order, and for a declaration that the property of the petitioners is a ‘Purayidam’ for all purposes.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent resisting the contentions in the writ petition and stating that the petitioners are trying to take advantage of a mistake in the re-survey and that the petitioners have got an alternative remedy against Ext.P8.

3. Sri.Karol Mathews, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ext.P3 has not been revised and is still in force and therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot pass an order in the nature of Ext.P8. It is also contended that Ext.P8 has been issued without notice to the petitioners and is in total violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. On being asked by this Court as to whether Ext.P8 proceedings was issued with notice to the 1st petitioner, it is fairly submitted by Smt.Surya Binoy, the learned Government Pleader, that Ext.P8 has been issued without notice to the 1st petitioner. Since Ext.P8 has been issued without hearing the petitioners, Exts.P8 and Ext.P10 are set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will be free to place all documents in support of their contentions before the 2nd respondent at the time of hearing.

Based on the decision to be passed, the competent among the respondents will make necessary changes in the BTR, if warranted.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

SPR

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1623/1995 DATED 05.05.1995 IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED

11.11.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 T