JUDGMENT : The petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Kalayani Amma who was the owner of an extent of land admeasuring 1.36 acres situated in Sy. No. 84/2A3 in Menhaniam Amsom, Desom in Quilandy Taluk. 2. Around four decades back, the Government of Kerala acquired the aforesaid extent of land under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894, for a public purpose, i.e., for the benefit of the Malabar Market Committee. The requisite compensation for acquisition was also paid to the owner. The Malabar Market Committee had been established and constituted under the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act , 1933. 3. Later, the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act , 1933 prevailing in the erstwhile Malabar area of Kerala was declared void and unconstitutional by this Hon'ble Court. As a result, the Malabar Market Committee ceased to exist. Following the declaration of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act as void and unconstitutional, the then District Collector, Kozhikode was appointed as the Administrator and Liquidator of the Malabar Market Committee, with authority to dispose of its assets in order to meet its liabilities, including arrears of salary and pension payable to the employees as well as to the members of the defunct Committee. 4. Late Kalyani Amma, the original owner of the land, upon becoming aware of the above developments, submitted a representation to the Secretary, Revenue Department, requesting that the aforesaid land be re-conveyed to her upon payment of the prevailing market value at that time. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of the said representation, she approached this Court by filing O.P. No. 8263/2003. This Court disposed of the original petition with a direction to the competent Government Authorities for considering the said representation, after giving her an opportunity of hearing. 5. Pursuant to the direction in the said Judgment, the Government considered the representation for re-conveyance of property and passed Ext. P1 order dated 29-07-2003 whereby the above said extent of 1.36 acres of land in Sy. No. 84/2A3 of the Koyilandy Taluk was ordered to be re- conveyed to Late. Kalyani Amma provided she remitted compensation amount with normal bank rate of interest up to the date of re-conveyance or the current market value of the land whichever was higher, as a special case. The relevant portion of Ext. No. 84/2A3 of the Koyilandy Taluk was ordered to be re- conveyed to Late. Kalyani Amma provided she remitted compensation amount with normal bank rate of interest up to the date of re-conveyance or the current market value of the land whichever was higher, as a special case. The relevant portion of Ext. P1 reads as follows: “As directed by the Hon'ble High Court the petitioner's son was heard in person by the Deputy Secretary to Government Revenue Department. In the hearing the petitioner has requested to reconvey their land which was acquired by Government for Malabar Market Committee which is kept idle now. Government have examined the case in detail. As the land was acquired for Malabar Market Committee and the establishment of the Market Committee did not take place no public purpose has arisen as contemplated during the time of acquisition proceedings. The High Court has also directed that Government may exercise its discretion and decide the matter. Hence Government are pleased to order that an extent of 1.36 acres of land in Sy. No 84/2A3 of Koyilandy Taluk which was acquired from the petitioner be re- conveyed to her provided she remits the compensation amount with normal bank rate of interest (current rate) up to the date of re- conveyance or the current market value of the land which ever is higher, as a special case.” 6. While so, one V. Alice Mathew, the then President of Perambra Grama Panchayat filed WP(c) No. 25559/2003 challenging Ext. P1 order contending that, once the Government had acquired the land, it ought not to be re-conveyed to the original owner, and being a Government organisation, the land should be allotted to the panchayat upon payment of the prevailing market value. During the pendency of the said writ petition, Kalyani Amma passed away and the petitioners, the legal heirs, were impleaded. This Court, by Ext. P2 judgment dated 20.11.2012, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Government by Ext. P1 had exercised its discretion in favour of Late Kalyani Amma, and the Court is not persuaded to interfere with that decision. Furthermore, since the petitioner therein had no subsisting right in the subject matter of the writ petition, and the Panchayat had not filed any application for impleading, it was held that the Panchayat had no grievance against Ext. P1 order. Aggrieved by Ext. Furthermore, since the petitioner therein had no subsisting right in the subject matter of the writ petition, and the Panchayat had not filed any application for impleading, it was held that the Panchayat had no grievance against Ext. P1 order. Aggrieved by Ext. P2 Judgment, the Perambra Grama Panchayat preferred an appeal as WA No. 2228/2012 and it is pending before this Court. 7. The petitioners state that, although they have consistently been willing to remit the entire amount as directed in Ext. P1 order, the Government authorities have repeatedly refused to accept the payment, possibly due to the interim stay that was in force in W.P.(C) No. 25559/2003 until its dismissal. 8. While so, the Government passed Ext. P3 order dated 16-09-2019 revoking Ext. P1 order. Ext. P3, which is in Malayalam, conveys the following: “As per G.O. (Rt) No. 2219/03/RD dated 29.07.2003, 1.36 acres of land in R.S. No. 84/243 of Menjanyam Village, Koyilandy Taluk, which had been acquired for the Malabar Regulated Marketing Committee, was ordered to be re-conveyed to the former owner, Smt. Kalyani Amma, upon the Society ceasing to function, subject to payment of the prevailing market value along with interest. However, since Smt. Kalyani Amma had not paid the market price and interest, nor effected the transfer of registry of the land to her name or paid the applicable taxes, the District Collector, Kozhikode, vide letter dated 03.07.2019, requested that steps be taken to cancel the said order. The Government have examined the matter in detail and hereby direct that the order for re- conveyance of 1.36 acres of land in R.S. No. 84/243, Menjanyam Village, Koyilandy Taluk, originally acquired for the Malabar Regulated Marketing Committee to the former owner, Smt. Kalyani Amma, upon the Society ceasing to function, be cancelled, since the applicant has not paid the market price and interest, nor effected the transfer of registry of the land to her name or paid the taxes. The District Collector is directed to take necessary steps to take over the land and ensure its protection from any encroachments.” The petitioners state that Ext. P3 order has the effect of cancelling the re-conveyance of the land ordered in Ext. P1. The same has been issued without affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. It is stated that Ext. P3 order has the effect of cancelling the re-conveyance of the land ordered in Ext. P1. The same has been issued without affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. It is stated that Ext. P3 has been arbitrarily passed after the lapse of about 16 years from the date of passing of Ext. P1. It violates the petitioners' legitimate expectation and vested rights over the land, conferred by Ext. P1. The petitioners further state that the reason for the issuance of Ext. P3 order, which cancelled the re-conveyance, as evident from the order itself, is that they failed to pay the market price and interest and to carry out the mutation of the land in their names. According to the petitioners, the reason stated in Ext. P3 is highly arbitrary and illegal. The authorities consistently refused to accept payments due to the stay order in the previous writ petition. It is also stated that Ext. P3 is passed in connivance with certain vested interests that have a mala fide interest in the said extent of land. Challenging Ext. P3, this writ petition is filed. 9. This Court on 10.10.2019 passed an interim order staying the effect and operation of Ext. P3, pending disposal of the writ petition. 10. A statement as well as a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent wherein it is stated that by Ext. P1, the subject property was ordered to be re-conveyed to Late Kalyani Amma, as a special case, subject to payment of compensation amount received by her, with normal bank rate of interest up to the date of re-conveyance or the current market value of the land, whichever is higher. However, Late Kalyani Amma has not complied with the conditions in Ext. P1 G.O and has not remitted any amount in that regard. It is stated that since nobody has remitted the amount covered by Ext. P1 and has not complied with the condition enumerated therein, the Government, invoking its inherent power issued Ext P3 order, cancelling Ext. P1. It is further stated that, after the issuance of Ext. P1, neither the petitioners nor their predecessor in interest had expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the amount covered by Ext. P1 for the purpose of re- conveyance, till 19.11.2018. P1. It is further stated that, after the issuance of Ext. P1, neither the petitioners nor their predecessor in interest had expressed their readiness and willingness to pay the amount covered by Ext. P1 for the purpose of re- conveyance, till 19.11.2018. The Counter affidavit refers to G.O (MS) No. 387/00/RD dated 22.12.2000, wherein the Government have issued specific guidelines for disposal of lands acquired which have been kept un-utilised for the purpose for which they were acquired. As per the guidelines, if land acquired for a public purpose is no longer needed by the department concerned, they must notify the District Collector and immediately hand over possession to the Revenue Department. Until the land is handed over, the acquiring department is responsible for keeping it free from encumbrances. The District Collector must then ascertain if any other Government department or local body requires the land for their use. If so, the District Collector will take action to transfer or assign the land. If the land cannot be disposed of as above, it must be sold by public auction after an upset price is fixed. It is stated that the District Administration is facing acute shortage of land for developmental activities and the land in question is kept idle for long, which could have been utilized for public good. It is in the said circumstance that Ext. P3 was issued recalling Ext. P1, with the aim of using this land for developmental activities. It is stated that the ambit, scope and spirit of the said Government order was not taken into consideration while issuing Ext. P1. It is further stated that though Ext. P1 is dated 29.07.2003, the petitioners who are legal heirs of Late Kalyani Amma had not approached the Government expressing their intention to remit the amount covered by Ext. P1, till 2019. Neither Late Kalyani Amma nor her legal heirs had any legal embargo in complying with the conditions in Ext. P1. Therefore, it is stated that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioners, consequent to issuance of Ext. P3. It is further stated that the petitioners cannot harp on the pendency of W.P (C) No. 25559 of 2003, which had culminated in Ext. P2 Judgment dated 20.11.2012 for not remitting the amount covered by Ext. P1. It is stated that the petitioners had not acquired any vested right over the land covered by Ext. P3. It is further stated that the petitioners cannot harp on the pendency of W.P (C) No. 25559 of 2003, which had culminated in Ext. P2 Judgment dated 20.11.2012 for not remitting the amount covered by Ext. P1. It is stated that the petitioners had not acquired any vested right over the land covered by Ext. P1. 11. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit reiterating their stand in the writ petition and denying the averments in the counter affidavit. 12. The Perambra Grama Panchayat has filed an application for impleading. The application is opposed by the petitioners by filing counter affidavit. Since WA No. 2228/2012 filed by the Perambra Grama Panchayat against Ext. P2 judgment is pending before this Court, I am of the view that they are proper parties to this writ petition and their application for impleading is allowed today by separate order. 13. Heard Sri. Adarsh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. S. Kannan, the learned senior Government Pleader and Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the additional respondent. 14. According to the petitioners, they have consistently been willing to remit the entire amount as directed in Ext. P1 order. However, the Government authorities have repeatedly refused to accept the payment, possibly due to the interim stay that was in force in W.P.(C) No. 25559/2003 until its dismissal. The 1 st respondent would contend that the petitioners did not approach the Government expressing their intention to remit the amount covered by Ext. P1 until 2019 and there was no legal impediment preventing either Late Kalyani Amma or her legal heirs from complying with the conditions set out in Ext. P1. They also contend that the petitioners cannot rely on the pendency of W.P. (C) No. 25559 of 2003, which was ultimately dismissed by Ext. P2 judgment dated 20.11.2012, as a justification for their failure to remit the amount covered by Ext. P1. So the question to be decided is whether there was any legal embargo, arising from the interim stay in W.P.(C) No. 25559/2003, that prevented the petitioners from remitting the amount as per Ext. P1, or from fulfilling the other conditions, prior to 2019. 15. P1. So the question to be decided is whether there was any legal embargo, arising from the interim stay in W.P.(C) No. 25559/2003, that prevented the petitioners from remitting the amount as per Ext. P1, or from fulfilling the other conditions, prior to 2019. 15. Since the copy of the interim order in W.P. (C) No. 25559/2003 was not produced by either side, to ascertain the nature of the interim order granted in the said case, this Court called for the “judges Paper” in W.P.(C) No. 25559/2003 and the same is incorporated in the files. It is seen from the proceedings sheet of W.P.(C) No. 25559/2003 that the writ petition was filed on 08.08.2003 and an interim stay was granted on the same day for two weeks. The order reads as follows: “GP takes notice for R1 & R2. Notice by Special Messenger to R3. Interim stay for 2 weeks. Post on 21.08.2003.” The interim relief sought for was to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Ext. P9 order (Ext. P1 herein) for re-conveying the property to the 3 rd respondent (Late Kalyani Amma), pending disposal of the writ petition. The interim stay granted was extended from time to time and was extended until further orders on 27.07.2004. The interim stay was in force until the dismissal of the writ petition on 20.11.2012 by Ext. P2 judgment. Aggrieved by Ext. P2 Judgment, the Perambra Grama Panchayat has preferred an appeal as WA No. 2228/2012 and it is pending before this Court. The Division Bench has, by order dated 19.12.2012, granted stay of operation and implementation of Ext. P2 Judgment. 16. According to the petitioners, they have consistently been willing to remit the entire amount as directed in Ext. P1 order. However, the Government authorities have repeatedly refused to accept the payment. Accepting payment would be a step in pursuance of the order, which was stayed. Therefore, it was not possible for Late Kalyani Amma or her legal heirs to remit the amount ordered in Ext. P1 while the stay was in effect. The petitioners were prevented from doing so by an order of this Court. Therefore the reason stated in Ext. P3 for cancelling Ext. P1, namely, the failure to remit the amount covered by Ext. P1 cannot be sustained. 17. Further, Ext. P3 order, which cancelled Ext. P1 while the stay was in effect. The petitioners were prevented from doing so by an order of this Court. Therefore the reason stated in Ext. P3 for cancelling Ext. P1, namely, the failure to remit the amount covered by Ext. P1 cannot be sustained. 17. Further, Ext. P3 order, which cancelled Ext. P1, was passed without affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. It was issued 16 years after the issuance of Ext. P1, by which time Smt. Kalyani Amma had passed away. The Government failed to take note of these facts while issuing Ext. P3. Notably, Ext. P1 was issued after hearing Smt. Kalyani Amma, pursuant to the directions of this Court. However, while cancelling Ext. P1, neither she nor her legal heirs were granted an opportunity to be heard. Had such an opportunity been provided, they could have explained the reasons for not remitting the amount directed under Ext. P1 and for not effecting the mutation. Ext. P3, therefore, has been issued in total violation of the principles of natural justice. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to revisit Ext. P3 and pass fresh orders in accordance with law with notice to the petitioners and the additional 3 rd respondent and any other interested parties as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that all legal and factual issues are left open to be considered by the Government. The interim order dated 10.10.2019 passed in this case shall continue till fresh orders are passed as above. The writ petition is disposed of as above.