Natural justice requires that all affected parties must be notified and given a chance to present their case before any administrative action is taken against their rights.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

W.P.(C)No.27283 of 2022

The petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Ext. P7 order issued by the 1^st respondent dated 08.08.2022;

ii) declare that the 1^st respondent has no power to invoke Rule 28 of Cardamom Rules , 1935 alleging violation of the grant/lease by the Government and to cancel the patta granted for cultivation of cardamom;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the properties covered by Exts.P6 & P6(a) documents by the petitioners”.

2. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.27283 of 2022, petitioners 1 and 2 purchased some properties comprised in survey No.109/1 and 109/2B, 4D of Bison Valley village in Udumbanchola Taluk of Idukki district, vide Exts.P1 and P1(a) documents dated 04.06.1998 of SRO Rajakumari. The said property was issued with Pattayam No.381 for the cultivation of cardamom as per the Cardamom Rules 1935. Petitioners 1 and 2 had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property by paying land tax to the Government. They obtained the Thandaper account number also on the properties. Evidencing the possession of petitioners 1 and 2, petitioners produced Ext.P2 land tax receipt dated 16.08.2022, Ext.P3 true copy of the Thandaper account number obtained from Bison Valley village on 24.11.2021, and Ext.P4 possession certificate dated 28.09.2021 issued to petitioners 1 and 2. The petitioners further pleaded that for protecting the cardamom cultivation from weeds, 1^st petitioner was using pesticides. The Forest Range office, Devikulam, charge sheeted the 1^st petitioner, alleging commission of offences under Sections 4 and 5(2) of the Kerala Prevention of Trees Act . However, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly, acquitted the 1^st petitioner as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 16.04.2013 in C.C. No.294 of 2010.

2.1. Subsequently the 1^st petitioner received a notice in the year 2015 from the 1^st respondent for hearing scheduled on 09.09.2015. The 1^st petitioner appeared before the 1^st respondent and explained that there was no attempt to destroy the trees, since shade is necessary, and there was no change in the cultivation of cardamom, and also, there was no violation of the lease. He further informed the 1^st respondent that the 2^nd petitioner is a co-owner of a property who has not received any notice from the 1^st respondent. Thereafter, petitioners 1 and 2 assigned their right over the properties in favour of petitioners 3 and 4, who are their children by virtue of Exts.P6 and P6(a) settlement deeds dated 19.02.2022. Now, petitioners 1 and 2 received Ext.P7 order dated 08.08.2022 from the 1^st respondent, cancelling the pattayam in respect of the properties covered in Exts.P1 and P1(a) documents.

2.2. The petitioners further plead that in Ext.P7 order, the 1^st respondent stated that though the 1^st petitioner was acquitted from the prosecution proceedings as per the provisions of the Kerala Prevention of Trees Act , he is bound to protect the trees in the land and any destruction caused to the trees would amount to violation of the condition of lease and as per Rule 28 of Cardamom Rules , 1935, the violation of the condition in the lease would amount to cancellation of pattayam by relying on the provisions under the General Clauses Act. By relying on the judgment of this Court in Vincy Cherian v. State of Kerala [ 2014 (1) KLT 372 ] and State of Kerala v. Munnar Woods ( 2014 (4) KLT SN 33 ] the petitioners contend that , 1935 have been repealed by virtue of Section 9 (3) of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act ,1960 and therefore the autho