IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No.1285 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).10124/2008(E), DATED 26/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- --------------------------------------- C.SASIDHARAN NAIR, VASANTHAVILASOM BUNGLOW, MARIYAPURAM P.O, VIA..AMARAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. 5. CHENKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 & R6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1285 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 27th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10124 of 2008 dated 26th March, 2008. 2. The appellant had gone before the respondents, inter alia, requesting them to assign a portion of the land under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. After entertaining the writ petition, the learned Single Judge had directed the Government Pleader to get appropriate instructions from the respondents. 4. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Government Pleader, on instruction, had made a statement before the learned Single Judge that the land in question is reserved for a pubic purpose, i.e. for widening of the road. Keeping this aspect of the matter in view and further being of the opinion that as a matter of right the petitioner cannot ask for assignment of the land which is meant for a public purpose, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. WA.No.1285 of 2008 2 4. We are in full agreement with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, while affirming the findings and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, we reject this writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns