IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 349 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2625/2011 Dated 27/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / PETITIONER -------------- SMT.KHADEEJA, W/O.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT BILAL NAGAR, NELLIKATTA, NEKERJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.M.ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR (LA), KASARAGOD, PIN-670121. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, PIN-670315. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 4. KAMALA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O.KORAGA, SALATHADKA, NEKERJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670544. 5. MALINI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O.GOVINDAN, CHOORIPALLAM, NEKERJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670544. 6. CHENIYARU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O.CHANIYA, CHOORIPALAM, NEKERJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670544. W.A.NO.349/2011 7. THANKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, D/O.KUNHA, ADRUKUZHI, PADI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670121. 8. GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O.CHANIYA, AYALODU, PADI VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670121. 9. M.P.SHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O.MARTHADI, MIADIPALLA, NEKERJE VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-670544. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.349 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining assignment of the entire extent of land, i.e. 59 cents, for which the petitioner filed application. However, the learned Single Judge found that 7 cents, which was in the possession of the petitioner was in fact assigned to her and the balance land was earmarked for assignment to members of Scheduled Caste community, who were also arrayed in the Writ Petition as respondents 4 to 9. We do not find any justification to entertain the challenge against the judgment of the learned Single Judge because the petitioner as such has no right for assignment of the entire extent of land merely because she is a landless person. So many landless people are there in the State to be assigned land and therefore land has to be distributed by the Government in an equitable manner. W.A.No.349/2011 -2- Respondents 4 to 9 were assigned just enough land to put up houses for them. So much so, the order of the Government upheld by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. This Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg