IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33433 of 2009(Y) PETITIONER(S): 1. MR.P.P.GEORGE, 35/961-A, PUTHANPURACKAL ROAD, NORTH JANATHA, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MRS.REEBA RACHEL GEORGE, 35/961-A, PUTHANPURACKAL ROAD, NORTH JANATHA, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.P.P.GEORGE, 35/961-A, PUTHANPURACKAL ROAD, NORTH JANATHA, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN RESPONDENT(S): 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN. 3. DIRECTOR OF RESURVEY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESURVEY, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM. 5. M.K.MARAKKAR, MULAKKAMPPILLY HOUSE, KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN FOR R5 SRI.M.A.THOMAS KUTTY FOR R5 SMT.ASHA CHERIAN FOR R5 SRI.P.M.SANEER FOR R5 SMT.SARAMMA CHERIAN FOR R5 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 33433 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge Ext. P1 order of the 2nd respondent by which mutation effected in favour of the petitioners in respect of certain property has been cancelled allegedly without notice to the petitioners. Since the petitioners specifically allege that before passing Ext. P1 order the petitioners were not given a notice or hearing, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the avement of the petitioners that Ext. P1 order has bee passed without notice to the petitioners is correct. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the said averment is correct. 2. Counsel for the 5th respondent would contend that the mutation in favour of the petitioners itself has been granted without affording an opportunity of being heard to the 5th respondent and it was on the complaint filed by the 5th respondent that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext. P1 order. Even if the same is true, the Revenue Divisional Officer could not have committed the same mistake as earlier. Admittedly, Ext. P1 order has been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard. That being so, Ext. P 1 order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. For that reason alone, Ext. P 1 is liable to be quashed. I do so. The 2nd respondent is directed to re-consider the matter in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as the 5th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S to Judge.