JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 proceedings. Petitioner has also sought a consequential direction to the 4 th respondent to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner has also sought for setting aside order No.19581/D3/16/Rev., dated 20.03.2017, referred to in Ext.P6. 2. It is averred that the petitioner is in possession of 2 acres and 13 cents of property in Resurvey No.313/3 of Tanur Village, obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed executed in 1980. The property has been a coconut garden for more than 45 years, and all trees are yielding. Residential buildings are constructed in the surroundings by various persons. The surrounding properties are also not paddy fields, but garden lands. There is a road constructed by the Panchayath separating the plot into two pieces. While so, the 4 th respondent on 21.04.2007 issued Ext.P3 notice under Clause 7 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 stating that the property of the petitioner was under paddy cultivation during 3 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 and is attempted to be converted into garden land and hence the petitioner was directed to cultivate the land with paddy within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 3 rd respondent Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner by Ext.P4, remitted the matter back to the 4 th respondent to take a final decision in the matter. While issuing Ext.P4 order of remand, the report of the Additional Tahsildar dated 16.02.2008 was also taking into consideration wherein it is stated that in the subject property, there are coconut trees aged more than 20 years and a tamarind tree aged 15 years and further that, paddy cultivation has not been carried out in the property at least for a period of 20 years. After the remand, the 4th respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, conducted a site inspection and it was found that there are about 200 coconut trees aged more than 20 years in the property a tamarind tree, a well and a pump house and no paddy cultivation has been conducted in the property or the neighbouring properties for years. After the remand, the 4th respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, conducted a site inspection and it was found that there are about 200 coconut trees aged more than 20 years in the property a tamarind tree, a well and a pump house and no paddy cultivation has been conducted in the property or the neighbouring properties for years. On the basis of the same, the 4th respondent found that it is not practical to restore the land to its original condition and direct cultivation of paddy, and hence it was directed as per Ext.P5 order to change the nature of the land as 'garden land' in the village records. Though Ext.P5 order was issued on 29.07.2010, to the surprise of the petitioner, Ext.P6 letter dated 03.03.2022 was issued by the 4th respondent, intimating that the Government, as per the order dated 20.03.2017, directed to set aside Ext.P5 order and therefore, the petitioner was directed to appear before the 4 th respondent. Petitioner would submit that Ext.P6 letter was served on the petitioner only on 17.03.2022, ie., after the date fixed for the hearing, and therefore, he could not appear before the 4th respondent. Petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply before the 4th respondent, stating that it was after conducting site inspection and an enquiry by the then Revenue Divisional Officer and Additional Tahsildar, and evaluating other evidence, Ext.P5 order was issued and therefore, there is absolutely no basis for the contention that the petitioner has illegally converted the land. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order was issued, setting aside Ext.P5 order. Petitioner would contend that Ext.P8 order was issued without affording an opportunity to be heard and solely relying on the Government Order dated 20.03.2017. Petitioner would contend that in the proceedings before the Government also the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. Petitioner would submit on the basis of Ext.P9, which is the relevant portion of the data bank maintained by the Tanur Municipality, that the property of the petitioner is not included in the data bank. It is in the said circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8. 3. Petitioner relies on Ext.P10 KSRSEC report, which would reveal that even in the 2002 data, the property is observed under mixed vegetation/plantation/trees and fallow land. Only after the issuance of Ext.P8 order, the property has now been included in the data bank, as evident from Ext.P11. 4. 3. Petitioner relies on Ext.P10 KSRSEC report, which would reveal that even in the 2002 data, the property is observed under mixed vegetation/plantation/trees and fallow land. Only after the issuance of Ext.P8 order, the property has now been included in the data bank, as evident from Ext.P11. 4. A statement has been filed by the 4th respondent wherein it is admitted that action was taken against the petitioner for illegal conversion based on a complaint in respect of 10 cents of land, and the petitioner was directed as per Ext.P3 to cultivate the illegally converted 10 cents of land with paddy within a period of 30 days. Meanwhile, the Additional Tahsildar, Tirur has also conducted a site inspection which would reveal that the land was seen completely converted, and there were about 200 coconut trees aged more than 20 years along with a tamarind tree aged 15 years, as well as a well and a pump house, and that paddy has not been cultivated in the land for last more than 20 years. It is further stated that the Vigilance and Revenue Vigilance conducted enquiries and found that the order granting change of nature of the 2 acres 13 cents of land as garden land was without following the procedures and thereafter, the District Collector, based on the direction issued by the Government to cancel the said order, issued two notices to the petitioner, as evident from Annexures-R4(a) and R4(b), but the petitioner did not respond to the same and thereupon, Ext.P8 order was issued. It is further stated that action has been taken in accordance with the law and no interference is called for. Based on the direction issued by this Court, the letter issued by the Government dated 20.03.2017, based on which Ext.P8 order issued, is produced by the learned Government Pleader along with a memo. 5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 6. It is true that Ext.P5 order was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings initiated based on a complaint that the petitioner has illegally converted 10 cents of land. 5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides. 6. It is true that Ext.P5 order was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings initiated based on a complaint that the petitioner has illegally converted 10 cents of land. But against the proceedings initiated, Ext.P3 appeal was preferred by the petitioner and in the appellate proceedings, a report was called for from the Additional Tahsildar, and the Additional Tahsildar has filed a report dated 16.02.2008 wherein it is admitted that the property has been converted and there are about 200 coconut trees aged more than 20 years along with a tamarind tree aged 15 years and that for the last 20 years, no paddy cultivation is effected in the said property. It is taking into consideration the said report that Ext.P5 order was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as early as in 2010, finding that there is no purpose in directing to restore the property to its original position and granted permission to change the nature of the land in the Village Records as “thottam plantation”. It is true that Ext.P5 order was issued not on an application submitted by the petitioner seeking to use the property for other purposes as per Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, but on a complaint preferred by a third party complaining that the petitioner is attempting to convert the property into paddy land. It is based on the Government order dated 20.03.2017, which is produced along with a memo dated 09.06.2025 that Ext.P8 order was issued cancelling Ext.P5 order. Even admitting for the sake of argument that Ext.P5 order was issued on a complaint preferred by a third party that the petitioner is attempting to convert paddy land, Ext.P5 order was issued, taking into consideration the report of the Additional Tahsildar dated 16.02.2008 that the property has already been converted almost 20 years back and the coconut trees standing in the property is aged about 20 years and there is one tamarind tree aged about 15 years and that there is no paddy cultivation in the property for almost 20 years. The said report of the Tahsildar was also considered by the Land Revenue Commissioner while issuing Ext.P4 order remitting the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for reconsideration. The said report of the Tahsildar was also considered by the Land Revenue Commissioner while issuing Ext.P4 order remitting the matter back to the Revenue Divisional Officer for reconsideration. The Revenue Divisional Officer took into consideration the said report and also found that there is no purpose in directing the conversion of the land to paddy land, and granted permission to change the nature of the land in the revenue records to 'plantation'. May be there is a procedural error in the issuance of Ext.P5, but the same has been issued after due examination by the Revenue Divisional Officer, based on Ext.P4 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner and also taking into consideration, the report of the Additional Tahsildar dated 16.02.2008, stating that there is no paddy cultivation in the property for more than 20 years. Petitioner has a specific case that Ext.P8 order and the communication issued by the Government dated 20.03.2017 were issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Though the counter affidavit states that notices had been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner did not respond and therefore Ext.P8 order was issued, an important aspect to be noted is that Ext.P5 order was issued in favour of the petitioner as early as 2010, and the said order was cancelled by Ext.P8 only in 2022, that too on the basis of communication dated 20.03.2017, copy of which is produced along with a memo by the learned Government Pleader. If the Government has found any anomaly in the issuance of Ext.P5 order, it is incumbent on the part of the Government to have heard the petitioner before issuing the communication dated 20.03.2017, which has not been done in the present case. Further, the report relied on by the Government for issuing the communication dated 20.03.2017 was also not provided to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has a case that Ext.P8 order was issued without affording an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, Ext.P8 proceedings as well as the communication from the Government bearing No.19581/D3/16/Rev, dated 20.03.2017, based on which Ext.P8 order has been issued, are set aside, and the following directions are issued. 8. 7. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, Ext.P8 proceedings as well as the communication from the Government bearing No.19581/D3/16/Rev, dated 20.03.2017, based on which Ext.P8 order has been issued, are set aside, and the following directions are issued. 8. The 1 st respondent Government shall issue notice to the petitioner and serve the petitioner with all reports, which are relied on by the Government for issuing the communication dated 20.03.2017 and take a fresh decision in the matter, especially, taking into consideration, Ext.P4 order issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the report of the Additional Tahsildar, Tirur dated 16.02.2008. The report of the Additional Tahsildar, Tirur, as well as Ext.P10 KSRSEC report and any other documents to be submitted by the petitioner shall also be duly considered and take a final decision in the matter within an outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 9. Thereafter, the 4 th respondent shall take a decision based on the outcome of the decision by the 1 st respondent, with notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a further period of 3 months thereafter. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.