ORDER 1. The controversy in these appeals relates to the assignment of 28 cents of puramboke land in Survey No. 8710 of Quilon village. The appellant and the fourth respondent sought for assignment of the land in question. The State Government thought it fit to assign it in favour of the fourth respondent. The appellant, aggrieved by the assignment of the land made in favour of the fourth respondent, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 2-8-1995 observing that the appellant had not been able to show that the assignment was in contravention of any of the provisions of law. The Division Bench also stated, in the impugned order, that under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, it was open to the State Government to assign the land, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Rules, if it considers it necessary to do so in public interest. The appellant filed review petition seeking review of the order dated 2-8-1995. The Division Bench ofthe High Court dismissed the review petition also stating clearly that the appellant had not been able to show that the assignment was made in contravention of any of the provisions of law. Hence, these appeals. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the assignment made in favour of the fourth respondent was in contravention of Section 4 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent, in his arguments, supported the impugned orders. 4. It may be stated here that the appellant could not claim assignment of the land as a matter of right. The High Court has observed that the appellant was unable to show that the assignment of land in favour of the fourth respondent was in contravention of any of the provisions of law. The complaint made by the learned counsel for the appellant, before us, that the assignment was made in contravention of Section 4 of the Act, in our view, is untenable. Section 4 of the Act speaks of procedure to be followed when the government lands are to be assigned. Nothing was pointed out before the High Court as to what exactly was the contravention. Section 4 of the Act speaks of procedure to be followed when the government lands are to be assigned. Nothing was pointed out before the High Court as to what exactly was the contravention. In this view, the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition as well as the review petition. These appeals, being devoid of any merit, are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed. 5. No costs.