IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 377 of 2009(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------- C.A. RAMANKUTTY, S/O. ARUMUGHAN, MANJU NIVAS, MAYILAMPULLY, NABULLIPARA.P.O, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF PRIVATE FOREST AND CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, OLAVANKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKAD TALUK. BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SRI. RANJITH THAMPAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 412 OF 2009 & WPC NO. 413 OF 2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C).Nos. 377, 412 & 413 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners in these writ petitions seek consideration of Exts.P3 and P4(in WPC 377/09) and Exts.P4 and P5 (in WPC 412 & 413/09) representations made by the respective petitioners for assignment of the lands in terms of Ext.P1 Rules. Petitioners were in possession of certain lands, which according to the learned Additional Advocate General, were forest lands. It is also stated on behalf of respondents that the petitioners have been evicted on 13.06.08. In so far as the representations now made by the petitioners are concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General points out that if such representations are made in terms of Ext.P1, such representations are entertainable only in terms of Rule 6 thereof. It is stated that there has not been any publication of list of assignable lands in which event only there can be an application for assignment also. 2. In my view, even though representations have been preferred by the petitioners, so long as any list of assignable lands have not been published, the applications cannot come within the scope of Ext.P1 Rules. In such a case this Court will not be justified W.P.C.Nos. 377, 412 & 413 OF 2009 -:2:- in directing the respondents to consider the representations. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ttb