JUDGMENT K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 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. 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. After Ext. P9 had been issued, the Panchayat attempted a review of Ext. P9. Even that was dismissed by Ext. P10, again without affording an opportunity of being heard. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 that the memorandum of review petition submitted against Ext. P9 shall be taken as hearing of the contentions available to the petitioner in the revision petition filed by the 4th respondent. That will not be, because the scope of as review petition is always centered around the order sought to be reviewed. Even at least in the review stage the Govt. ought to have given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. That was also not given. It was without even a hearing that the review petition was dismissed by Ext. P10. Therefore Ext. P6 and Ext. P10 are liable to be set aside with direction to the Govt. to consider the matter afresh. 4. 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. 5. This contention cannot be accepted. 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. 5. This contention cannot be accepted. When an order is set aside by the higher authority fairness requires compliance of principles of natural justice even if the statute does not provide for a hearing. Perhaps in such cases, if no different conclusion is possible even if hearing had been given, the Court may not set aside the order only for the purpose of rendering a hearing, which may be only an empty formality, because no prejudice arises. But that is not the case where the statute requires an opportunity being afforded in appeal or revision. There it is not the mere principles of natural justice what is violated, but a statutory requirement to be followed by the appellate/revisional authority. That infringement of the statutory protection itself is a prejudice to the affected party and he need not separately show any other prejudice. When the opportunity as envisaged by the statute is not afforded, that goes to the root of the matter. The exercise of power itself was not proper. In such cases, non compliance of the statutory requirement of hearing makes the order vitiated. What is envisaged by R.21(9) is that an opportunity of being heard shall be given. What is contemplated is a reasonable opportunity of being heard. That is personal hearing by the decision making authority. When that statutory mandate is violated, naturally the order is bad. 6. Respondents 5 to 7, the legal representatives of deceased 4th respondent, in whose favour the patta was once granted can really contend before the revisional authority the inaction on the part of the Panchayat. The revisional authority shall while taking the decision after hearing the parties concerned shall consider the entire historic background of the issue and each and every steps right from the consideration of the application of assignment submitted by the 4th respondent and till the application by the Panchayat to cancel the patta. These aspects shall be dealt with in detail by the revisional authority. Therefore the Original Petition is allowed quashing Ext. P6 and Ext. P10 and directing Govt. These aspects shall be dealt with in detail by the revisional authority. Therefore the Original Petition is allowed quashing Ext. P6 and Ext. P10 and directing Govt. to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.