JUDGMENT : (AMIT RAWAL, J.) Present writ appeals are directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 16.12.2024 disposing of two writ petitions; Writ Petition No.20783 of 2020 filed by the appellants in W.A.205 of 2025 and W.P(C) No.21684 of 2020 by the appellant in W.A.1157 of 2025. In both the writ petitions, common exhibits were challenged but with different numbers. Exts.P9 dated 24.09.2020, P14 dated 22.11.2019 and P15 dated 12.08.2020 have been challenged in W.P(C).20783 of 2020 whereas in the other writ petition bearing No.21684 of 2020 also the same orders were challenged by exhibiting them as Ext.P21, P19 and P20 respectively. 2. Respondent No.11 (in W.P(C).20783 of 2020) submitted an application dated 19.03.2014 under Rule 6(5) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Burial Rules 1998’, for short) for construction of a vault Cemetery, on a land with an extent of 0.44 Ares situated in Re-survey No.428/5 of Mattoor Village Aluva Taluk, to the Panchayat, which was forwarded to the Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer. The said application was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 13.09.2016 Ext.P8 on the ground that the land, in the revenue records, was shown as Nilam (paddy land). Realizing that the land was Nilam, an application dated 25.09.2017 under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, was submitted to the Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for conversion of the land. 3. The Sub Collector/RDO considered the application by seeking a report of Village Officer dated 20.12.2017 and of the Agricultural Officer, Kalady dated 02.09.2019, ordered removal of 9.40 ares of land comprising in Re-survey No.428/5 in Block No.27 from the data bank permitting for non-agricultural purposes subject to the imposition of the following conditions: (i) would not reclaim the nearby water bodies, wetland and paddy land and would not cause any obstruction to the paddy cultivation. (ii) Free flow of water in the property involved in the application owing to the existence of natural channels will be retained. (iii) In case of any arrears of water tax shall be remitted. 4. Since the first attempt to construct the cemetery vault was rejected as per the reasoning assigned in the order Ext.P8 dated 13.09.2016, another application Ext.R11(e) dated 25.11.2019 was submitted for raising of the construction, which was rejected on 28.12.2019. (iii) In case of any arrears of water tax shall be remitted. 4. Since the first attempt to construct the cemetery vault was rejected as per the reasoning assigned in the order Ext.P8 dated 13.09.2016, another application Ext.R11(e) dated 25.11.2019 was submitted for raising of the construction, which was rejected on 28.12.2019. The ground of rejection was that once there is already a rejection, there is no provision of review. Under Rule 6(10) of the Burial Rules, 1998 affected parties are also at liberty to assail the order before the competent government within a period of thirty(30) days. Having left with no other choice, appeal was preferred, by that time period of three(3) years had already elapsed, from the date of dismissal of the application dated 19.03.2016, on 13.09.2016. 4. Government, Vide Ext.P9 granted the permission after hearing the objectors i.e., the petitioners who are claiming to be the residents of the area, though at a far away place according to the order. The said order along with the order of the Government were assailed in the writ petition No.20783 of 2020 by the petitioners on various grounds which are enumerated in short that; (I) Owing to the promulgation of the Kerala Conservation of the Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 the application under the Kerala Land Utilization Act, 2017 dated 25.09.2017 could not have been entertained as Section 3A was already in vogue for entertaining the application for conversion of the Paddy Land into non-agricultural or notified land. (II) The appeal preferred before the Government was hopelessly time barred. (III) The application could have been entertained only under the amended provisions of the 2008 Act incorporated with effect for 30.09.2017 i.e., under Section 27A of the 2018 Amended Act. 5. Respondents contested the writ petition by filing the counter affidavit and submitted that the appeal was not time barred and in continuation of the original application submitted in 2014 as it was not having the statutory permission to convert the land. Therefore, was, without passing any speaking order rejected. In other words, until and unless respondents could not overcome the hurdle of conversion of the land, the applications for construction of the cemetery vault type could not have been submitted and therefore subsequent request vide Ext.R11(e) could not be said to be belated much less the appeal preferred against the order, Ext.P8 of 13.09.2016. 6. In other words, until and unless respondents could not overcome the hurdle of conversion of the land, the applications for construction of the cemetery vault type could not have been submitted and therefore subsequent request vide Ext.R11(e) could not be said to be belated much less the appeal preferred against the order, Ext.P8 of 13.09.2016. 6. The next objection was with regard to the locus of the residents as right to burial is a fundamental right and the distance provided under Rule 5 is 25 meters whereas the residential area as per the site plan attached along with the writ petition is far away, the closest is 33.8 meters and others are far beyond. 7. Learned Single Bench on analysis of the pleadings and the submissions made on behalf of counsel representing the parties to the lis dismissed the writ petition. It is in these circumstances the present writ appeals have been preferred. 8. Mr.Sreekumar Chelur learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.1157 of 2025 against the judgment in W.P(C).21684/2020 preferred against the dismissal of the writ petition bearing No.21684 of 2020 vide common order, rendered the assistance of this Court regarding the applicability and non applicability of the provisions of Wetland and KLU Act. 8. Mr.K.S.Bharathan along with Mr.Sreekumar Chelur submitted that the order of the Collector though reflects the invitation of the objection and adjudication but on perusal of the findings in the penultimate paragraph, order has been passed on the basis of the order of the Government dated 12.08.2020 Ext.P15, whereby the competent authority dealing with the appeal of respondent No.11 did not consider it appropriate to afford the opportunity to the applicants who are already raising hue and cry with regard to the construction of the cemetery vault type. Even otherwise, the provisions of Sections 3A and 27A and non applicability of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 has not been taken into consideration in correct perspective. 9. On the other hand, Mr.A.V.Thomas learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that no opportunity of hearing was required as, for all this period the petitioners were never in picture. They have already been heard by the Collector and terms of the order of the Government dated 12.08.2020 Ext.P15. 9. On the other hand, Mr.A.V.Thomas learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that no opportunity of hearing was required as, for all this period the petitioners were never in picture. They have already been heard by the Collector and terms of the order of the Government dated 12.08.2020 Ext.P15. Our attention has also been drawn to the particular paragraph of the order dated 24.09.2020 Ext.P9 regarding appropriate and sufficient opportunity to all the objectors. None of the petitioners are having any residence within the permissible limit and therefore there cannot be any question of pollution or causing any hindrance much less the right of burial is a fundamental right. As regards the applicability of the provisions of the KLU Order, submitted that since the application for conversion of land was submitted on 25.09.2017 and Section 27A of the Act came into being vide amendment of 2018 with effect from 30.12.2017 and in view of the Full Bench judgment affirmed by the honourable Supreme Court in Tahsildar & Another Vs. Renjith George in Civil Appeal No.14731 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C)No.9524 of 2020 decided on 19.12.2024, all the applications submitted for conversion of the land prior to 31.12.2017 have to be considered under the old provisions of the Act and not under amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 with effect from 30.12.2017. Thus, the remand to the government for affording opportunity would totally be a farcical exercise as sufficient opportunity by inviting the objections much less affording the hearing has already been granted while passing the order Ext.P9 dated 24.09.2020. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. 11. No doubt both the parties have reasonable substance and force in the submissions. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. 11. No doubt both the parties have reasonable substance and force in the submissions. Considering the fact that the petitioners were not given sufficient opportunity or authority at the helm of affairs did not think it appropriate to grant an opportunity for opposing the appeal as one of the ground taken was with regard to the entertainment of the appeal beyond the limitation period much less the applicability of the provisions of the Act as noticed above, we are of the view that the doctrine akin to the principles of natural justice must be, not only appear to have been done but complied with, and since the same has not been taken place, we do not deem it appropriate to delve on the other aspects as it need not prejudice the rights of the parties in the lis. 12. Without commenting on the merits, we thus set aside the order of the Government dated 12.08.2020 as well as order dated 24.09.2020 Ext.P9 and P15 and grant an opportunity to the petitioners. We are sanguine of the fact that the competent authority of the Government shall decide the appeal preferred by the respondent No.11 as expeditiously as possible, within a period of two months, in accordance with law after affording opportunity to all the affected parties i.e., the petitioners in the writ petitions. Any of the parties aggrieved will be at liberty to assail the order in accordance with law. Appeals stand allowed. Any observation recorded by us shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. We hasten to add that construction is already complete, but subject to certain approval. Till such time the appeal is decided, status quo shall be maintained.