Judgment :- V.K. Bali, C.J. We propose by this order to dispose of three connected matters wherein common questions of law and facts are involved. The bare minimum facts have, however, been extracted from W.P.(C).No.6459 of 2005 (Joy Thomas & Another V. State of Kerala & Others) which has been filed by way of a public interest litigation, as it is in this case that the pleadings are complete in all regards. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are residents of Akalakunnam Grama Panchayat and are vitally interested in the welfare of the residents of the Panchayat. The writ has been preferred for the benefit of the people for whom land has been set apart for constructing houses free of cost. The writ has thus been filed for the benefit of the residents of Akalakunnam Grama Panchayat and for those people who have been selected for being given free houses under the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme”. In the year 1993 as an act of altruism, Dr. Thomas George, the 5th respondent, gifted the land measuring 2.75 acres in Sy.No.222/3 and 222/7 of Block 45 f Akalakunnam Village, Kottayam District to the Kerala State Housing Board, the second respondent herein by virtue of a registered gift deed. A copy of the said gift deed dated 10.1.1994 has been placed on record as Ext.P1. The gift deed was made for a specific purpose, i.e. the schedule properties would be utilized for constructing houses for the poor and homeless and named as “Sri. M.T. George Maaillady Memorial Housing Complex” under the “Rajeev Ten Laksh House Construction Scheme”. Even though Ext.P1 was styled as a gift deed, it is in effect a trust, created by the 5th respondent for the benefit of the poor and the homeless and the second respondent was the trustee. Prior to the creation/execution of Ext.P1 the Grama Panchayat, the third respondent herein, had found after inspection that the property covered by Ext.P1 was ideally suited for constructing about 200 houses for the homeless and that had sufficient trees, water, light, road and other basic amenities. A resolution was in fact moved by the third respondent Panchayat on 27.7.1993 resolving to initiate appropriate steps for obtaining the property for constructing houses for the homeless agriculturists. By letter dated 2.11.1993 the third respondent requested the second respondent to take immediate steps for taking over the property. A resolution was in fact moved by the third respondent Panchayat on 27.7.1993 resolving to initiate appropriate steps for obtaining the property for constructing houses for the homeless agriculturists. By letter dated 2.11.1993 the third respondent requested the second respondent to take immediate steps for taking over the property. The second respondent, after inspecting the property that was proposed to be given in trust, agreed to abide by the condition required by the 5th respondent that the housing complex should be named as “Sri. M.T. George Maillady Memorial Housing Complex”. Pursuant to execution of Ext.P1, possession of the property was handed over to the second respondent. Anticipating immediate construction of houses, the local anxiously waited, the homeless eagerly expected their dream to turn into a reality. Little did they realize that their hopes would be washed away due to misfeasance in public offices of second and third respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent immediately after taking possession cut and removed the rubber trees and the coconut trees standing on the property covered by Ext.P1 for a total amount of Rs.56,000/-. The trees were cut and removed apparently with the intention of constructing the houses immediately. Thereafter the Panchayat invited applications and is even known to have selected 200 homeless families to be allotted free houses under the Scheme. An amount of Rs.7 lakhs was also deposited by the Panchayat with the Housing Board. Unfortunately, however, none of the houses under the Scheme has been constructed and the second respondent is retaining the amount of Rs.7 lakhs without constructing the houses and the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme” still remains a paper scheme. A couple of years ago P.T. Thomas, the 4th respondent herein, a businessman, purchased the property adjacent to the property covered by Ext.P1 and set up a quarry in the property purchased by him and obtained lease. It is even doubtful whether the 4th respondent has all the licences to run the quarry. The 4th respondent soon realized that the setting up of the Housing Scheme in the property covered by Ext.P1 would probably impair the growth and potential of his business. Respondents 2 and 3, solely for benefiting the 4th respondent’s interest, started delaying the House Construction Scheme. The public offices of the second and third respondents started aiding the 4th respondent in his illegal activities. Respondents 2 and 3, solely for benefiting the 4th respondent’s interest, started delaying the House Construction Scheme. The public offices of the second and third respondents started aiding the 4th respondent in his illegal activities. Second and third respondents thus by not implementing the project and by retaining the money set apart for the project committed misfeasance in public office. The local residents of the Panchayat and the beneficiaries of the proposed housing scheme soon realized that the Panchayat was committing a volte-face and was trying to avoid the housing scheme completely atleast on the property covered by Ext.P1. The 4th respondent is also known to have made several attempts to impress upon the Panchayat members to shift the housing scheme from the property in Ext.P1. It is further the case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent has in fact impressed the Panchayat members that the property under Ext.P1 is not suitable for constructing houses and the third respondent has even gone to the extent of passing a resolution stating that the property in Ext.P1 is not at all suitable for constructing houses. The Panchayat had also conceded the 4th respondent to shift the Housing Scheme to an alternate site and to exchange or sell the property in Ext.P1 to the 4th respondent. A resolution to that effect was passed by the third respondent on 13.1.2005. When the residents of the Panchayat came to know of passing of the resolution Ext.P5 and the illegal attempts as also the unholy nexus of respondents 3 and 4, they formed an Action Council. They pointed out to the authorities concerned the attempt of the 4th respondent to get the third respondent exchanging the extremely valuable property in Ext.P1 with a valueless property and thereby obtain undue pecuniary advantages. It is further the case of the petitioners that the property in Ext.P1 now has a minimum value of Rs.30,000/- per cent while the property proposed to be exchanged has only a value of Rs.5,000/- per cent. Over and above the financial advantage, the illegal business interest of the 4th respondent is also intended to be satisfied. Such an exchange of property created as a trust or donated as a gift is impermissible and illegal. Pointing out the illegality the residents of the Panchayat including the petitioners filed representations before respondents 1 to 3 apart from other officials. Such an exchange of property created as a trust or donated as a gift is impermissible and illegal. Pointing out the illegality the residents of the Panchayat including the petitioners filed representations before respondents 1 to 3 apart from other officials. A copy of the representation was sent to respondents 1 to 3 but despite that second and third respondents are now taking hasty steps to exchange the property covered by Ext.P1 with some other property. The beneficiaries of the Housing Scheme are afraid to challenge the proposal lest they be denied the benefit. It is in the wake of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, that the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of declaration that the property covered by Ext.P1 cannot be utilized for any purpose other than for constructing houses for the homeless under “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme” and also to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 and all proceedings initiated by second and third respondents to exchange the land covered by Ext.P1 with any other land and further to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the second and third respondents to implement the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme” immediately in a time bound manner. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondents have entered appearance and contested the cause of the petitioners by filing written statements. In so far as Dr. Thomas George, the 5th respondent is concerned, he has however, supported the petitioners and prayed that the reliefs asked for by the petitioners be granted and the second respondent be asked to implement the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme” in the property gifted as per Ext.P1 within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. He has averred in the counter affidavit filed by him that 2.75 acres of land was gifted to the second respondent for constructing houses for the poor and homeless under the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme”. It was specifically admitted that it would be named after his father as “Sri. M.T. Mailllady Memorial Housing Complex”. The respondents satisfied the suitability of the land for the said purpose before executing Ext.P1. He was given an impression about the status of the project that the same is in process and would be starting after completion of certain formalities. It was specifically admitted that it would be named after his father as “Sri. M.T. Mailllady Memorial Housing Complex”. The respondents satisfied the suitability of the land for the said purpose before executing Ext.P1. He was given an impression about the status of the project that the same is in process and would be starting after completion of certain formalities. He was however, shocked to hear that the Panchayat is intending to exchange the said property for some other property to favour some people of their choice. It is for the remembrance of his father’s magnanimous attitude towards his fellow beings and for the benefit of landless people that he purchased the schedule property and gifted to the second respondent. He had gifted the property as he was satisfied that it had all facilities like water, road, etc. for the occupation of houses for many number of homeless people. The said respondent had gifted the property for the purpose of building houses under the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme”. It was a conditional gift. It could not be used for a purpose other than for which it was made. The second and third respondents would have absolutely no authority to use the said property for any purpose other than construction of houses under the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme”. 4. The third respondent Grama Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit through K.N. Mohandas, Secretary, Akalakunnam Grama Panchayat. It has inter alia been averred therein that the writ has not been filed in public interest and to the best of knowledge of the Panchayat it has been filed to protect the vested interests of the petitioners. As per Ext.P1 the 5th respondent gifted the properties mentioned therein to the Housing Board for construction of the housing colony in memory of his father under the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme”. After Ext.P1 the Housing Board submitted a project report on 18.3.2004 (Ext.R3(a)), wherein it is stated that the project will commence on 1.4.2004 and will be completed on 31.3.2005. Agreements were executed on 21.2.2004 (Ext.R3(c)). While so, on 15.1.2005 the 4th respondent gave a letter to the Panchayat (Ext.R3(d)). The Executive Engineer of the Housing Board also issued a letter on the next day (Ext.R3(e)) which would show that it was impossible to put up a Housing Complex in Ext.P1 property. Agreements were executed on 21.2.2004 (Ext.R3(c)). While so, on 15.1.2005 the 4th respondent gave a letter to the Panchayat (Ext.R3(d)). The Executive Engineer of the Housing Board also issued a letter on the next day (Ext.R3(e)) which would show that it was impossible to put up a Housing Complex in Ext.P1 property. In Ext.R3(d) the 4th respondent offered to provide alternate property. It is in this background that the Panchayat passed the resolution Ext.P5. On the basis of Ext.R3(c) agreement a total amount of Rs.9,35,680/- was collected on 31.3.2004, 12.10.2004 and 13.10.2004 by the second respondent Panchayat. Till March, 2005 not even a single house was constructed even though the entire project should have been completed on 31.3.2005. In view of Ext.R3 (e) letter of the Executive Engineer, it was impossible to construct a Housing Complex in the property covered by Ext.P1. In the meanwhile the Grama Panchayat in Ward No.9 (Muzhoor Ward) passed a resolution against the construction of the Housing Complex as proposed. It is in the above circumstances that the Panchayat took a resolution to request the second respondent to return Rs.9,35,680/-. However, on 2.5.2005 the second respondent rejected the said request. On 6.5.2005 the 4th respondent informed that he had purchased 2.48 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.248/4,7. The period of construction of the houses expired on 31.3.2005 by which time not even a single building was constructed. On 10.5.2005 the Executive Engineer informed that construction cannot be proceeded with in view of the obstruction created by the stone quarry. On 1.6.2005 the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board sent a letter forwarding a new project at an estimated cost of Rs.12,23,850/-. From the facts as mentioned above it is pleaded by the Grama Panchayat that it could be seen that the Housing Board has not commenced or completed the construction. The Panchayat in fact has decided not to proceed with the construction of the Housing Project in Ext.P1 property. The Panchayat has informed the second respondent that rehabilitation project of the landless would be undertaken by the Panchayat itself. Since the period of Ext.R3(c) agreement was expired it is impossible to make the Housing Complex in Ext.P1 property. The Grama Panchayat has resolved not to implement the said project. The Panchayat has informed the second respondent that rehabilitation project of the landless would be undertaken by the Panchayat itself. Since the period of Ext.R3(c) agreement was expired it is impossible to make the Housing Complex in Ext.P1 property. The Grama Panchayat has resolved not to implement the said project. It is then pleaded that the petitioners have approached this Court with an intention to prevent the implementation of the Housing Scheme in the alternate property offered by the 4th respondent. 5. P.T. Thomas, the 4th respondent, in the counter affidavit filed by him has stated that as per letter dated 13.6.1992 the 5th respondent offered to donate an area of 2.5 acres of land to the District Collector, Kottayam for the purpose of developing a housing colony under the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme”. The land proposed to be donated was planted with nine years old high yielding variety rubber and there was no scarcity for drinking water. The property had road access too. The only condition prescribed by the 5th respondent for making the gift was that the housing colony should be named after his late father M.T. George. 6. A proposal was submitted by the 5th respondent to donate an area of 2.5 acres of land. The Panchayat on 30.6.1992 considered the matter and requested the District Collector to take immediate steps to take possession of the land. In the resolution Ext.R4(B) the survey number of the property of the 5th respondent was mentioned as 153/02 and further that it was an area of 2.5 acres and that it was a level land with road access and that water and electricity were available at the site. While so, Sri. Jossy George, brother of the 5th respondent offered to donate another 2.67 acres of property instead of 2.5 acres in Sy.No.153/2 for construction of the housing colony. He submitted a representation before the Kerala State Housing Board pursuant to which the Chairman, K.S.H.B. informed the District Collector that the proceedings initiated to take possession of the 2.5 acres of property offered by the 5th respondent could be dropped. The District Collector issued a letter dated 16.10.1992 to the third respondent intimating the information he received from the Chairman, K.S.H.B. and sought opinion of the Panchayat in the matter. The District Collector issued a letter dated 16.10.1992 to the third respondent intimating the information he received from the Chairman, K.S.H.B. and sought opinion of the Panchayat in the matter. On receipt of the letter aforesaid the third respondent held a meeting on 23.10.1992 and considered the matter in detail. Taking into consideration the nature of the properties offered by the 5th respondent and his brother Jossy George, the third respondent resolved to request the District Collector to acquire 2.5 acres of land in S.Y.No.153/2 offered by the 5th respondent. Even after passing of Ext.R4(D) resolution by the third respondent the District Collector did not initiate any step to acquire the land offered by the 5th respondent. In such circumstances the President and Secretary to the third respondent submitted a representation before the Chief Minister requesting him to take all necessary steps to ensure that the property in Sy.No.153/2 offered by the 5th respondent is immediately taken possession of for the purpose of the housing colony. While the property offered by Jossy George was a rocky and barren land with no availability of drinking water the property offered by the 5th respondent was a fertile land, planted with high yielding rubber trees. Water and electricity were also available at the site. Under such circumstances the third respondent requested the Chief Minister and other authorities not to accept the offer of Jossy George but to accept the offer made by the 5th respondent. Meanwhile the dispute in respect of the two properties became a matter of great concern for all who were genuinely interested in the project and as such the issue was discussed in various fora and political meetings. At the instance of Jossy George the 5th respondent later agreed to transfer another 2.75 acres of land in Re.Sy.Nos.222/3 and 222/7 to the second respondent. The offer was accepted by the second respondent without consulting the third respondent. Thereafter the 5th respondent executed Ext.P1 gift deed in favour of the second respondent and handed over the said 2.75 acres of land covered by Ext.P1. But the land covered by Ext.P1 was in no way similar to the 2.5 acres of land in Sy.No.153/2 originally offered by the 5th respondent. The land now gifted by the 5th respondent was a dry, rocky and barren land. There was no availability of drinking water in the property covered by Ext.P1 gift deed. But the land covered by Ext.P1 was in no way similar to the 2.5 acres of land in Sy.No.153/2 originally offered by the 5th respondent. The land now gifted by the 5th respondent was a dry, rocky and barren land. There was no availability of drinking water in the property covered by Ext.P1 gift deed. Due to the rocky nature of the land it was impossible to make septic tanks for the houses. Construction of the houses in the property covered by Ext.P1 was strongly objected by the beneficiaries as well as the other public spirited persons. In such circumstances the second respondent put off the construction of houses in the property covered by Ext.P1. Meanwhile, the Executive Engineer, KSHB addressed a letter to the President of the third respondent. In the letter aforesaid the Executive Engineer, KSHB explained that even though the Board has started the first stage of the construction work, it was forced to stop the work in view of the tremors experienced at the site which were caused by the explosions carried out at the nearby granite quarry and that even if houses were constructed, they would be damaged sooner than later. On enquiry they came to know that the quarry obtained mining licence from the Government and that it was impossible to make septic tanks for toilets in the property due to its rocky nature and further that there was extreme scarcity of water in the locality. In such circumstances, the Executive Engineer, KSHB requested the third respondent either to create a better atmosphere for constructing houses for the beneficiaries to reside in those houses or to acquire some other suitable land and shift the project. It has further been averred in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent that he has a quarry near the property gifted by the 5th respondent as per Ext.P1. He has obtained sanctions and licences from the authorities concerned and he is running the said quarry since 1996 strictly in compliance with the various provisions of law. It is not in the best interest of anybody to develop a housing colony near to a quarry. His quarrying work would be seriously affected if the housing colony is developed near to his property. It is not in the best interest of anybody to develop a housing colony near to a quarry. His quarrying work would be seriously affected if the housing colony is developed near to his property. In such circumstances, he submitted a representation to the third respondent on 5.1.2005 stating that he was ready to buy another property having equal extent and which may be more suitable for setting up a housing colony, if the site of the project could be relocated. The third respondent considered the matter with all seriousness and passed Ext.P5 resolution dated 13.5.2005. It was resolved by the third respondent that if he can make available equal extent of land near the proposed housing colony which is more suitable for the purpose, his request would be favourably considered. Thereafter he identified five plots which were highly suitable for putting up the housing colony and requested to second and third respondents to inspect and approve the most suitable one for them. The plots were inspected by respondents 2 and 3 and after considering the various aspects one plot having an extent of 2.48 acres in Sy.Nos.335/1, 335/11/14, 335/13 and 335/8/15 in Akalakunnam Village was found suitable and was selected. The Executive Engineer, KSHB thereafter informed the second respondent that the alternate site pointed out by him could be accepted in the place of the land covered by Ext.P3 document subject to certain conditions. There were, however, objections by several local residents and therefore the officers of respondents 2 and 3 inspected another plot pointed out by him. The said property was a very fertile land planted with high yielding rubber trees in Re.Sy.Nos.248/4/7, 248/4/8 and 248/1 of Akalakunnam Village. The said property has an extent of 2.42 acres and drinking water was available in plenty. It was found ideal for the proposed housing colony and the second and third respondents permitted him to purchase the said land. It was thereafter that he entered into an agreement dated 7.2.2005 for purchase of the said 2.42 acres of land and paid a sum of Rs,8 lakhs towards advance sale consideration. Meanwhile the Grama Sabha convened its meeting on 22.2.2005 and a few representatives of the beneficiaries raised an objection against putting up of the housing colony in the property covered by Ext.P1 gift deed. Meanwhile the Grama Sabha convened its meeting on 22.2.2005 and a few representatives of the beneficiaries raised an objection against putting up of the housing colony in the property covered by Ext.P1 gift deed. The Grama Sabha considered the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that the land covered by Ext.P1 is not suitable for putting up a housing colony and it was unanimously decided to construct the houses in a more habitable and suitable land. The 4th respondent then purchased the said land of 2.42 acres paying a total sale consideration of Rs.18,44,628/-. The property now purchased by him is close to the properties of the petitioners, who apprehended that if a housing colony is set up near to their properties it would adversely affect the value of their properties. According to this respondent, in fact it is the said apprehension of the petitioners, which has resulted into filing of the writ petition. The 4th respondent denies the averments made in the petition that the gift deed made by the 5th respondent was conditional or that it was in fact a trust created for the poor. 7. In the separate counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, Kerala State Housing Board, it has inter alia been pleaded that the third respondent has passed a resolution with regard to the alternate site offered by the 4th respondent and transmitted it to the second respondent for a favorable decision. The Board however, rejected such recommendation and decided to proceed with the construction work already started at there. The second respondent has no information about the selection of beneficiaries under the “Rajiv One Million Housing Scheme” by the Panchayat. With regard to the nature of Ext.P1 it is admitted that the same is in effect a gift. As intended in the gift deed the second respondent has started construction of houses in the said land. Meanwhile due to the financial crisis the Board could not proceed with the construction work. In order to carry out house construction, trees were cut down and removed by public auction for an amount of Rs.37,350/-. Since the house construction was interrupted due to proper allocation of fund the Panchayat had agreed to undertake house construction by their own fund and thereby entered into an agreement on 21.2.2004. In order to carry out house construction, trees were cut down and removed by public auction for an amount of Rs.37,350/-. Since the house construction was interrupted due to proper allocation of fund the Panchayat had agreed to undertake house construction by their own fund and thereby entered into an agreement on 21.2.2004. By virtue of the said agreement the Board had handed over the said land to the Panchayat and the Panhayat had entrusted the construction work to the Board. Pursuant to the agreement the Board had started works, viz. Land Survey clearing of land, cut and removal of bushes, invitation of tenders for providing labour and materials, etc. Meanwhile the Panchayat passed a resolution dated 13.1.2005 in support of the petition filed by the 4th respondent and forwarded it to the Board for facvourable decision. Through the said resolution the Panchayat has consented for an exchange of land donated by gift instead of an alternate land offered by the 4th respondent. According to them the present land is located very near to a rock quarry run by the 4th respondent. Explosions may affect the dwelling units in the housing scheme. Moreover, the donated land was full of rock and construction of septic tanks for toilet, etc. is quite impossible and there would be scarcity of water supply and hygienic condition. The Board, however, by its meeting held on 19-4-2005 decided to reject the suggestion of alternate land and decided to proceed with the works already started. The fact that the 4th respondent is running a quarry very close to the housing scheme has been admitted. It is also admitted that blasting of rocks would seriously affect the construction works as well as peaceful dwelling in the said houses. The Board has thus requested the Panchayat to regulate the works in the quarry so as to make a favorable atmosphere for construction of houses. 8. W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2005 is filed by P.T. Thomas, 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.6459 of 2005. The case of P.T. Thomas is that the Kerala State Housing Board is trying to implement a housing scheme in an area which is absolutely unsuitable for constructing houses. The said area is near to a licensed quarry. 8. W.P.(C) No.14235 of 2005 is filed by P.T. Thomas, 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.6459 of 2005. The case of P.T. Thomas is that the Kerala State Housing Board is trying to implement a housing scheme in an area which is absolutely unsuitable for constructing houses. The said area is near to a licensed quarry. Constructing a housing colony in such an area will be a Himalayan blunder because the residents of the colony will never get water even during Monsoon season and because of thin layer of earth covering the flat rock bed, it is impossible to construct septic tanks. The petitioner offers, against the assurance given by the respondents, 2.48 acres of prime land which is eminently suited for constructing a housing colony with availability of water round the year, easy road access, etc. Respondents 1 to 3 were themselves convinced that the area in Sy.No.222/3, 7 was absolutely unsuitable for putting up a housing colony. Nevertheless, inspite of the availability of far superior land with ever so many advantages for putting up a housing colony the first respondent is now trying to start construction of the houses in the rocky area. In the context of the facts as stated in the petition P.T. Thomas seeks a declaration that the property comprised in Sy.Nos.222/3 and 222/7 of Akalakunnam Village is unsuitable for the housing project approved by the Panchayat. He also seeks a declaration that the respondents are bound by the promises made to the petitioner who acted on the same and took further steps to purchase a parcel of land ideally suited for the housing project and hence it is illegal to make construction of houses in any other place. Some of the respondent have filed counter affidavits, but there will be no need to give further details of the same in as much as the pleadings and counter pleadings made by the parties are similar to the one made in W.P.(C)No.6459 of 2005. 9. In W.A.No.929 of 2005 the appellant was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. He filed W.P.(C)No.8119 of 2005 wherein he made a grouses against the Kerala State Housing Board in constructing a housing colony in a plot of land adjacent to his plot. 9. In W.A.No.929 of 2005 the appellant was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. He filed W.P.(C)No.8119 of 2005 wherein he made a grouses against the Kerala State Housing Board in constructing a housing colony in a plot of land adjacent to his plot. It was his case that the plot of land where the housing colony was proposed to be constructed was not good for residential occupation as it was a rocky area and there was no water available. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the contentions raised by the petitioner do not at all reveal any acceptable ground for objections against the proposal of the first respondent in making a housing colony vide orders dated 11th March, 2005. An application to review the order aforesaid was made, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 8th April, 2005. It is these orders which have been challenged in the writ appeal. All that further requires to be mentioned is that the petitioner sought a prohibition to raise the housing colony in the land covered by the gift deed Ext.P1. 10. From the pleadings of the parties as reflected above, what transpires is that Dr. Thomas George had gifted the land for a specific purpose, i.e. construction of a housing colony for the landless people. The PIL (W.P.(C)No.6459 of 2005) filed by Joy Thomas & another has been supported by Dr. Thomas George claiming that the land subject matter of gift is before suited for a residential colony and the concerned respondents should set up the residential colony in the land gifted by Dr. Thomas George. With a view to strengthen the plea for constructing a housing colony in the land gifted vide Ext.P1 the petitioner in the PIL would endeavour to show this Court that the land purchased by the 4th respondent for the same purpose would be wholly unfit for setting up a residential colony. They would further endeavour to show that the gift made by him was a conditional one and instead of making a housing colony if the beneficiaries of the gift were to exchange it is some other land, then the fight itself could not be acted upon. It is further specifically pleaded that the gift is conditional and to be valid a housing colony has to be made thereon. As mentioned above, Dr. It is further specifically pleaded that the gift is conditional and to be valid a housing colony has to be made thereon. As mentioned above, Dr. Thomas George, arrayed as 5th respondent in the writ petition aforesaid, has made pleadings and prayed that the reliefs contained in the PIL be granted. 11. Before we may comment upon and determine the controversial issue, we would like to mention that even though both, 4th and 5th respondents might be wanting settlement of landless people by providing them a house-stead in the land gifted or purchased by them for their own reasons, the construction of houses for landless people and the aspirations to live in the houses has become a causality. It is unfortunate that even though the 5th respondent gifted the land for a noble purpose and the 4th respondent purchased the land even though to avoid objections that may be raised by the residents of the colony with regard to the quarrying operations, the net result is that a laudable purpose of settling poor people and for the people to have a dream come true of having a roof over their heads has so far been defeated. The Scheme for constructing houses for the poor and homeless under “Rajeev Ten Lakh House Construction Scheme” is a non-starter, even though from the date the Scheme was conceived and sought to be established a period of 13 years have gone by. 12. The pleadings are voluminous, but the answer to the riddle lies in finding out the parcel of land that may be indeed suitable for construction of houses. The parcel of land where houses are to be constructed must have the basic amenities essential for residents. In the context of conflicting claims made by 4th and 5th respondents, each claiming the parcel of land offered by him to be the only suitable land for developing a housing colony, there was no choice for this Court but for to have a report with regard to the feasibility of two parcels of lands for construction of houses. In the context of conflicting claims made by 4th and 5th respondents, each claiming the parcel of land offered by him to be the only suitable land for developing a housing colony, there was no choice for this Court but for to have a report with regard to the feasibility of two parcels of lands for construction of houses. That being so, when the matter came up before us on 31st March, 2006, after hearing the arguments for some time we passed the following order: “After hearing argument for some time, the court would like to have a report with regard to the feasibility of 2075 acres of land comprised in Survey No.222/3 and 222/7 of Block 45 of Akalakunnam Village, Kottayam for construction of houses particularly considering the quarrying going on in the near vicinity. The report will clearly indicate whether the land as mentioned above is fit for construction of houses and that the inhabitants of the village would have a proper enjoyment of the houses despite the quarrying going on in the near vicinity. The report will also be made with regard to feasibility of 2.42 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.248/4/7, 248/4/8 and 248/1 of Akalakunnam Village covered by Document No.323/2005 of Koshuvanal Sub Registry for construction of houses and whether the land is fit for the construction of houses. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Kottayam shall go to the land in both survey numbers mentioned above for an inspection and submit the report within one month from today. 13. Pursuant to the order reproduced above, the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Kottayam has given the report against which no objections have been filed by anyone. The Executive Engineer after inspection and survey of 2.75 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.222/3 and 222/7 of Block 45 of Akalakunnam Village, Kottayam has stated that the site covering survey numbers as mentioned above is under the possession of the Kerala State Housing Board. Basements with rubble masonry for certain number of houses are seen carried out much earlier. However, regarding the location of the land it is seen that the land is at the top of a hill with rock formation in the immediate depths. Availability of water required for habitation is not seen. It is noticed that a granite quarry edicts on the adjacent land. However, regarding the location of the land it is seen that the land is at the top of a hill with rock formation in the immediate depths. Availability of water required for habitation is not seen. It is noticed that a granite quarry edicts on the adjacent land. The quarrying going on in the adjacent land will be hazardous for habitation in the said property. The land comprised in Sy.Nos.222/3 and 222/7 of Block 45 is the one offered by way of a gift covered by Ext.P1 by the 5th respondent Dr.Thomas George. While dealing with the parcel of land measuring 2.42 acres comprised in Sy.Nos.248/4/7, 248/4/8 and 248/1 of Akalakunnam Village purchased by the 4th respondent and offered for construction of a housing colony, the Executive Engineer mentioned that the same has been found to be suitable for constructing houses. Perennial water source is also seen in the vicinity. The land has also better accessibility than that referred to in the parcel measuring 2.75 acres gifted by the 5th respondent. In view of the categoric report given by the Executive Engineer dated 29.4.2006 against which, as mentioned above, no objections have been filed it has to be necessarily held that the housing colony if at all has to come into being in parcel of land comprised in Sy.Nos.248/4/7, 248/4/8 and 248/1. The residents of the housing colony have to have perennial water source and if that is available only in the area measuring 2.42 acres and further that the parcel of land measuring 2.75 acres is at the top of a hill with rock formation and close to which there is a granite quarry and it will be hazardous for habitation, the concerned authority can only made a housing colony in the area measuring 2.42 acres even though some work might have been carried out in the area measuring 2.75 acres and for that purpose even though some money also might have been spent. The Decision taken by the Grama Panchayat through resolution passed by it even in the midst of carrying out some work for construction by the Kerala State Housing Board in the area measuring 2.75 acres is wholly justified and cannot be faulted at all. The 5th respondent, we may observe, has indeed a laudable idea and his effort to provide homestead to poor people has to be appreciated. The 5th respondent, we may observe, has indeed a laudable idea and his effort to provide homestead to poor people has to be appreciated. But the land offered by him by way of gift is not suitable for those who might be allotted the houses and even water is not available it will be of no use in carrying out the desire of the 5th respondent to construct a housing colony, howsoever laudable it may be. Reluctantly, though we have no choice but to hold that the Grama Panchayat is justified in shifting the area for construction of housing colony. The Kerala State Housing Board is also convinced of the fact that the area measuring 2.75 acres of land would not be suitable for construction of houses. It states so in the pleadings and yet would be obdurate and doggedly stick to the construction work in the said area and would not like to shift it to an area which is fit for construction of a housing colony. 14. Having held that the housing colony needs to be built in the area measuring 2.42 acres offered by the 4th respondent even though it may be for the purpose of saving his quarrying business in the adjacent land measuring 2.75 acres, the next question that has to be determined is with regard to the Grama Panchayat exchanging the land gifted by the 5th respondent, Dr. Thomas George. The gift Ext.P1 was made on 10th January, 1994. The land gifted is to the extent of 2.75 acres. The gift was made to the Housing Board for constructing homes for the homeless under the “Rajeev Ten Lakh House Construction Scheme” on condition that the same would be named as M.T. George Maillady Memorial Housing Complex. It is stated in the gift deed Ext.P1 itself that as per letter dated 1.12.93 numbered as 709/P9/CR/93 the Secretary of the Housing Board has agreed to do so and by letter dated 22.12.1993 the Secretary had requested Dr. Thomas George to hand over the properties to implement the aforesaid scheme. It was for that reason it was further mentioned that Dr. Thomas George had relinquished all his right title and interest in respect of the said property and gift the same to the Housing Board. 15. The gift deed Ext.P1 is indeed conditional. Thomas George to hand over the properties to implement the aforesaid scheme. It was for that reason it was further mentioned that Dr. Thomas George had relinquished all his right title and interest in respect of the said property and gift the same to the Housing Board. 15. The gift deed Ext.P1 is indeed conditional. The purpose of gift is specific, i.e. constructing homes for homeless under “Rajeev Ten Lakhs House Construction Scheme” on the condition that the same will be named as M.T. George Maillady Memorial Housing Complex. Surely, if the purpose of gift is not be to carried out, or in other words, the condition on which the land was gifted is not complied with, it may not be possible for either the Housing Board or the Grama Panchayat to exchange the land covered by Ext.P1 with some other land. The land, therefore, covered by Ext.P1 cannot be given in exchange to somebody else in lieu of the land offered by him, and in stating so we would hasten to add that the gift deed Ext.P1 cannot be declared to be invalid in a public interest litigation. It is significant to mention here that the 5th respondent has not filed any petition seeking declaration that the property covered by Ext.P1 if utilized for any other purpose than the one mentioned therein the gift itself shall be invalid. Dr. Thomas George, 5th respondent, even though might have prayed in tune with the prayers in the public interest litigation, but this prayer cannot be allowed on his behalf as the respondent in a public interest litigation, even though it has to be observed that the property covered by Ext.P1 cannot be utilised for any purpose other than for constructing houses for the homeless under “Rajeev Ten Lakh House Construction Scheme”. The 5th respondent, however, may seek the gift Ext.P1 made by him to be invalid in appropriate proceedings. The relief sought for in the writ petition filed by Joy Thomas & another for implementing the “Rajeev Ten Lakh House Construction Scheme” can be granted, but the same would be only with regard to the land measuring 2.42 acres in Sy.Nos.248/4/7, 248/4/8 and 248/1 and we do order that the scheme be implemented as expeditiously as possible and the construction work must start within six months from today. 16. 16. W.P.(C)No.14235 of 2005 filed by P.T. Thomas, 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.6459 of 2005, can be allowed to the extent that the scheme for constructing house under the “Rajeev Ten Lakh House Construction Scheme” be implemented in the land offered by him. It is significant to mention here that it is not the case of 4th respondent that he was offering the land purchased by him for constructing the housing colony in lieu of the land that may be given to him by the Housing Board or the Grama Panchayat. The Housing Board or the Grama Panchayat would thus made all out efforts to construct the housing colony in the land offered by the 4th respondent in the manner and according to the time schedule as mentioned above. W.A.No.929 of 2005 filed by Jose Joseph would stand dismissed.