IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18504 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SANKARANARAYANA PILLAI, PAYYALOOR VEEDU, AYITHOTTUVA MURI, WEST KALLADA PO KOLLAM 691500, NOW RESIDING AT JOLSNA, PRATHIBA NAGAR LINE 3, PALAKKAD 678 013. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, FORT PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695023. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION PO, KOLLAM 691 013. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR TALUK OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA PO, KOLLAM 690 521. GP SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18504 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM FOR 11.980 CENTS DATED NIL ISSUED TO C.K.VILASINI IN L.A.10/1988 BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUR. EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM FOR 20.500 CENTS DATED NIL ISSUED TO K.RAMACHANDRAN IN L.A.11/88 BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUR EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.3.07 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, WEST KALLADA VILLAGE EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.6.1999 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUR EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.297/2000 DATED 20.2.2006 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.1.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUR. EXT.P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.4.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER EXT.P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2010 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXT.P9- A TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD MAP OF THE AREA DATED NIL. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .............................................. W.P.(C).18504/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner owns a plot of land situated in Survey No.1/1 of West Kallada Village. Adjacent to the said property, there is an extent of 16.750 cents of land in Survey No.1/1 which is a river puramboke. According to the petitioner, along with two others who also were in possession of similar such plots, an application was made for assignment of land and finally, the land was ordered to be assigned, in L.A.12/1988. Although such a submission has been made, the assignment order is not placed on record. 2. Subsequently Ext.P4 order was issued by the Tahsildar, Kunnathur, stating that the petitioner's assignment application in relation to 18 cents of land in Survey No.1/1 cannot be allowed for the reason that the land is not assignable. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Government which resulted in Ext.P8 order dated 23.12.2010, in which the order of Tahsildar has been affirmed. However petitioner has been informed that he can use the pathway through river W.P.(C).18504/11 2 puramboke. It is on receipt of Ext.P8, this writ petition has been filed. 3. As far as the claim of the petitioner for assignment of the land in question is concerned, as I have already noticed that nothing has been placed on record to indicate that any order was passed on any previous occasion assigning the land in question to the petitioner. That apart, neither Ext.P4 nor Ext.P8 supports this case of the petitioner. Further there is also no material to indicate that the land in question is assignable as contemplated under the Kerala Land Assignment Act or Rules. Further since the land is a river puramboke, in view of the judgment of this Court in O.P.Nos.16077/1996 and 17233/1996, even the Government cannot order assignment of the river puramboke. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons the claim of the petitioner for assignment of the land in question is to be rejected and I do so. 4. It is true that the petitioner has a case that two plots in the neighbourhood have already been assigned to two of his neighbours and so far assignment is not disturbed and that therefore, he is also entitled to be treated equally. Even if it is W.P.(C).18504/11 3 true and if such orders are passed subsequent to the orders as above, such orders cannot improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. 5. Petitioner then contended that his registered holding is land locked and even the permission given in Ext.P8 allowing him to use the public pathway through river puramboke is not a sufficient access. In my view, if he has such a grievance and especially since the Government have already been given a limited right of access in Ext.P8, it is open to the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the fourth respondent who shall, if necessary, after inspecting the land and after examining the grievances, pass orders in the matter. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs