IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27613 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.K.MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN ACHARI, KAMALA BHAVAN, VELLAR, KOVALAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTEMNT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (LA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK-695001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27613 OF 2010 (B) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submitted application for assignment of 3.25 cents of road puramboke land. According to the petitioner, since 1957, the property has been in the possession of his predecessors and himself. It is stated that when the application was made, all departmental authorities have recommended for assignment in his favour. Petitioner refers me to Exts.P3 and P6 in this context. However, by Ext.P7, the 3rd respondent rejected the application and the appeal filed was rejected by the RDO as per Ext.P8 order. Subsequently, revision filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was also rejected by Ext.P13. Petitioner pursued the matter by filing a review and that was also rejected by Ext.P17. Thereafter Ext.P15 show cause notice was issued alleging unauthorised occupation and it is at that stage the writ petition is filed. 2. Admittedly, the land in question is a road puramboke. Going by Exts.P7, P8, P13 and P17, the orders concurrently rejecting his application for assignment, it is evident that the land WPC No. 27613/10 :2 : is used by the public and is required by the Government for road widening purpose. It is also stated that the land is not assignable. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp