IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15829 of 2007(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.M.SIDDIQUE, AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF P.M.MOHAMED ALI, RESIDING AT PADIYATH HOUSE, P.O.EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE METHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.NASARUL ASLAM - R2 SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU - R2 SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS - R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 15829 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of the Government, whereby the petitioner's application for assignment of certain land has been rejected. Originally, the writ petition was filed on the ground that in Ext.P2, the Government has stated that since it is Panchayath land, the Government cannot assign the land. But when it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P2 does not state so, the petitioner has sought to amend the writ petition and challenge Ext.P2 on the ground that the rejection of the application for assignment itself is bad. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is in occupation of the land and the petitioner is entitled to assignment of the same on payment of the market value. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In Ext.P2, the request of the petitioner was specifically rejected on the ground that the land in question is required for a public purpose of the Panchayath. The petitioner has no case W.P.(C).No. 15829 OF 2008 2 that the Panchayath does not need it for a public purpose. When the Government finds that the land is required for the public purpose of the Panchayath, I do not think that the petitioner can validly challenge Ext.P2. Therefore I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-