IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 34898 of 2004(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ IBRAHIM, S/O. MOOSA BEARY, RESIDING AT MARTHILA, CHARIGM HOUSE, POST MOVVAR, KUMBADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD. 3. TAHSILDAR, LAND ASSIGNMENT, KASARGOD. 4. HARIJAN SANKARAN, S/O. KUKKA, KAJI HOUSE, POST MOVVAR, KUMBADJE VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK. 5. BABU, S/O. MADARA, RESIDING AT BARIEMOOLA, POST MOVVAR, KUMBADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN BY ADV. SRI.L.GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTI FOR R4,R5. SRI.A.DINESH RAO FOR R4,R5. SMT.JINCY.V.MATHEW FOR R4,R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT ORDER DT.22.12.2000 IN LA 114/88 PASSED BY R3 IN FAVOUR OF R4. P2: .DO. OF R5. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.29.6.2003 IN AA 22/2001 OF R2 DISMISSING THE APPEAL. P4: TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.14.10.2004 OF R1 DISMISSING REVISION PETITION. P6: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMO DT.17.8.2001 IN AA NO.22/2001. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.34898 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P5 order confirming assignment of small extents of land to respondents 4 and 5 because on enquiry it was found that the assigned land was not in the possession of the petitioner and was not cultivated by the petitioner. Petitioner himself claims that he has 70 cents of land whereas the assigned land is .16 Ares and .15 Ares respectively. Even by description 4th respondent is a member of the Scheduled Caste community and the 5th respondent also appear to be in the same position. Even though the nature of assignment is not clear from the order, on the face of it and having regard to the extent of land assigned, I feel land is given to put up homestead for respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The W.P. accordingly fails and is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms