The court emphasizes the importance of due process and the necessity of notifying affected parties during land record change appeals.

J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri. Avaneesh Koyikkara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

2. An application in Form 7 filed by the petitioner for change of the nature of the land in the revenue records was rejected pursuant to Ext. P5 order issued by the 4^th respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext. P7 statutory appeal under Section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 before the District Collector. It is seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the said appeal expeditiously that the petitioner has approached this Court through the captioned writ petition.

3. The learned Government Pleader invites the attention of this Court to the averments in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5^th respondent to point out that certain portions of the properties are included in the names of third parties, as stated therein. Therefore, according to him, if the appeal is directed to be considered, it would be in the interest of justice that the affected parties, if any, are also put on notice.

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext. P7 appeal, after issuing notice to and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the affected parties referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the 5^th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-