The absence of a hearing opportunity in administrative cancellations under specific rules violates procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. The prayers in these writ petitions are extracted hereunder:

W.P.(C.) No. 2100 of 2026 (i) “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records leading to Ext.P10 order and quash the same (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3rd respondents to hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders afresh under section 27A(11) of the Act.

(iii) dispense with the production of English translation of vernacular documents (iv) Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, including the cost of these proceedings “ [sic]

W.P.(C.) No. 2880 of 2026 “i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records leading to Ext.P10 order and quash the same ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3rd respondents to hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders afresh under section 27A(11) of the Act.

iii. Dispense with the production of English translation of vernacular documents.

iv. Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, including the cost of these proceedings “ [sic]

3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that Ext.P4 orders passed in Form-6 application filed in accordance to Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules is cancelled by Ext.P10 alleging violation of the condition, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Government Pleader submitted that, as per the provisions, the applicant has to be heard and the original applicant, who is the predecessor of the petitioners were already heard. The property is now in possession of the petitioners and another, who are the subsequent purchasers. One of the co-owner already approached this Court by filing a writ petition. As per Ext.P11 judgment, this Court already set aside Ext.P10 and directed the authorised officer to hear him and other owners of the property and thereafter passed appropriate orders. If that is the case, no further direction is necessary. This Court safeguarded the interests of the petitioner also in the judgment dated 03.12.2025 in W.P.(C.) No. 42375/2025. Therefore, the same is applicable to the petitioners also.

Therefore, these writ petitions are closed.

Sd/-