JUDGMENT 1. Under challenge in this Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 19.05.2020 issued by the Government whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay an amount of Rs 1,37,45,865/ towards lease arrears. By the very same order, property having an extent of 26 cents has been ordered to be resumed. The petitioner also challenges the consequential notice issued by the Tahsildar calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 2,56,33,270/ being the lease arrears for the period from 2007 to 2020. 2. According to the petitioner, the Coronation Club was established in the year 1912 at Mattanchery in property having an extent of 45 cents in Sy No 460/3 granted by the then Diwan Peshkar by Exhibit P1 deed. What was then payable was nominal rent of 4 Annas. The club was established and later it was registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. Later the State Government refixed the rent as Rs 50/-in the year 1959. The petitioner asserts that Exhibit P1 would reveal that the lease granted was a permanent lease and this fact is acknowledged in Exhibit P2 communication issued by the Tahsildar to the District Collector. It is contended that without any prior notice, Exhibit P3 notice was served on them demanding a sum of about 2.5 Crores towards arrears of lease. On further enquiry, the petitioner realised that it was on the basis of Exhibit P4 order issued by the Government, that Exhibit P3 notice was issued. It is contended that Exhibit P4 order cannot be sustained as the same has been issued in blatant violation of the provisions of the law. No prior notice was issued to the petitioner nor they were afforded an opportunity of being heard. 3. It is in the afore circumstances that this Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Exhibits P3 and P4. 4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Government invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1966 has framed Rules for Assignment of Land within the Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995. As per the provisions of the Rules the lease holder has to file an application for renewal of the lease obtained under any Rules or order. As per the provisions of the Rules the lease holder has to file an application for renewal of the lease obtained under any Rules or order. It is further stated that the petitioner has remitted the lease amount only up to the year 2000 and they have not submitted any application in accordance with Rule 12 of the 1995 Rules. According to the 4th respondent, after the commencement of the 1995 Rules there cannot be any permanent lease in the Municipal or Corporation areas. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. 6. From the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is apparent that it was in exercise of powers under the Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Area Rules, 1995 that the lease was refixed and the land was ordered to be resumed. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1995 reads as follows: “17. Contravention of terms and conditions and resumption of land.-Any assignment on registry or lease shall be liable to cancellation for contravention of any of the conditions enumerated in the Pattah and in such case of land shall be resumed. The Pattah or lease shall also be cancelled if it is found that it was grossly inequitable or was made under a mistake of facts or owing of misrepresentation of facts or in excess of the powers delegated to the Assigning Authority or that there was an irregularity in the procedure: Provided that the person affected by such cancellation of pattah or lease and resumption of land shall be given an opportunity of being heard in person before passing such orders.” 7. The rules mandate that before cancellation of patta or lease and resumption of land, an opportunity needs to be given to the party and he shall be heard in person. In the case on hand, there is no case for the respondent that the notice as per the Rules was issued to the petitioner or that they were heard under Rule 17 before the rent was refixed. As held by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 582], the right to be heard has two facets, intrinsic and instrumental. As held by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 582], the right to be heard has two facets, intrinsic and instrumental. The intrinsic value of that right consists in the opportunity which it gives to individuals or groups against whom decisions taken by public authorities operate, to participate in the processes by which those decisions are made, an opportunity that expresses their dignity as persons. The instrumental facet of the right of hearing consists in the means which it affords of assuring that the public rules of conduct, which results in benefits and prejudices alike, are in fact accurately and consistently followed. The records clearly show that the petitioner was not granted a pre-decisional hearing before ordering resumption and refixation of rent as mandated under the Rules. In that view of the matter, I am unable to sustain Exts.P3 and P4. Having considered all the relevant facts, I quash Exts.P3 and P4. Notice shall be issued to the petitioner as required under Rules 1995 and fresh orders shall be passed as per procedure and in consonance with law. This writ petition is disposed of.