ULLOOR PANCHAYAT Vs. RDO, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this Original Petition is a Panchayat. Challenge is against Ext. P6 and Ext. P10. Several grounds are urged by the parties for and against Ext. P6 and Ext. P10, but I am impressed with only one submission against Ext. P6 that it is violative of R.21(9) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules.

(2.) THE facts for disposal of the case are as follows: The 4th respondent who is no more and in her place takes position respondent Nos. 5 to 7, her legal representatives, was in possession of 9 cents of land in Survey No. 1588 of Ulloor Village. That was Govt. land. The 4th respondent applied for assignment. A patta was given. The Panchayat later objected it. At the instance of the Panchayat the Tahsildar re-opend the matter and passed Ext. P4 order cancelling the patta. Against Ext. P4, the 4th respondent went in appeal before the RDO. The RDO dismissed the appeal by Ext. P5. There upon the 4th respondent went in revision before Govt. The Govt. set aside Ext. P4 and Ext. P5 and passed Ext. P6 order directing assignment of 9 cents of land in favour of the 4th respondent. While passing Ext. P6, Govt. was exercising the power vested in them under R.21 (9) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. That is the revisional power vested in Govt. It is provided in the proviso that "no such decision or order shall be revised, cancelled or altered under this Sub Rule without giving the party affected thereby, a reasonable opportunity of being heard." Ext. P6 altered Ext. P4 and Ext. P5 but it was passed without hearing the party, the petitioner, in whose favour Ext. P4 and Ext. P5 were issued by the subordinate authorities. It is incumbent on the Govt. to hear the party who is affected by the order issued in the revision petition. The opportunity to be given is not a mere opportunity but an opportunity of being heard. Being heard means hearing in person. That was not afforded before Ext. P6 was issued. Even if it is taken as contended by the counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 that the opportunity contemplated in the proviso is only an opportunity being given without a personal hearing, even that much had not been sufficed before passing Ext. P6. If the opportunity of being heard is understood as in a reduced manner as an opportunity being given, even then the memorandum of revision petition submitted by the 4th respondent ought to have been communicated to the petitioner and obtained the comments of the petitioner on the contentions raised by the 4th respondent. Even that had not been given. Thus Ext. P6 was totally violative of R.21(9) read with its proviso.

(3.) IT is contended by the counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 that the hearing will be only an empty formality. Even if hearing is given no different conclusion can be drawn by the revisional authority. Therefore in such circumstances Ext. P6 and Ext. P10 shall not be set aside to comply with an empty formality of hearing. The principles of administrative law in such circumstances will always be in favour of an order already existing if reasons are available in support of that.