Natural justice in statutory revision requires the hearing authority to decide the matter, not a successor officer.

A statutory revisional order under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was held invalid because the officer who decided the revision was not the same officer who had heard the parties. In a revision involving a judicial function, the authority that receives the personal hearing must ordinarily itself determine the matter; a successor officer cannot issue the order without rehearing the parties, as this makes the hearing illusory and breaches natural justice. The impugned revisional order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statutory revisional order was vitiated because the officer who heard the revision petition was different from the officer who decided it, thereby violating natural justice.

Analysis: The revision under section 83(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 was heard by one officer, but the impugned order was issued by his successor without rehearing the parties. In a statutory revision involving judicial function, the authority that hears the parties must itself decide the matter. Passing the decision by a different officer after personal hearing by another renders the hearing illusory and offends the settled rule of fair hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was invalid for breach of natural justice and could not be sustained. The petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the State Government for fresh consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory authority exercises a judicial function, the officer who hears the matter must ordinarily decide it himself, and a decision by a different successor officer without rehearing the parties violates natural justice.

---