Judgment : In this original petition, the petitioner challenges proceedings of the authorities for eviction of the petitioner under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act from 5 cents of Government land in Re. Sy.No. 17/1A//1A2A in Koothuparamba village in Thalassery Taluk leased to the petitioner and seeks assignment of that land to the petitioner under the kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. 2. The petitioner claims to be a registered association of Government and Semi-Government employees, formed for the intellectual, mental, spiritual and physical development and welfare of its members, named "Government Employees Recreation Club". By Ext.P2 Government order No. G.O(MS) No. 486/72/Rev. Dated 4.5.1972, an extent of 5 cents of Government land in Rs.No.17/1A1A2 of Koothuparamba village was leased to the petitioner. As stipulated under clause 2 thereof, the petitioner constructed a building for the club within the prescribed time, which is being used for the functioning of the club. By Ext.P3, the Government revised the lease rent payable by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was paying the lease rent promptly. While so, the petitioner filed an application dated 12.12.1990 before the Government for assignment of the said land to the petitioner. By Ext.P4 dated 19.1.1991, the petitioner was informed that the application was forwarded to the District Collector, Kannur, for further necessary action. By Ext.P5, the Government called for a report on the application of the petitioner, from Secretary of the Board of Revenue. The local MLA also represented to the Government in favors of the petitioner and by Ext.P6 dated 19.9.1996, the MLA was informed by the then Revenue Minister that the Principal Secretary (Revenue) has been directed to submit a report on the subject urgently. While so, the Collector, by Ext.P7 proceedings dated 24.4.97, informed the petitioner that the lease rent of the land has been fixed for the period from 1.4.82 to 31.3.96 as stated therein, consequent to which lease rent of Rs. 89,408/- is in arrears and demanding payment thereof failing which the Tahsildar was directed to take steps to recover the same. By Ext.P8 dated 28.7.98, the Government stayed the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7. But, by Ext.P9 dated 6.4.2000, the Government informed the petitioner that since, as per judgment dated 10.2.1998 in O.P.No. 22671/97 of this Court, the land in Re.Sy.No. 17/1A1A can be used only for Government purposes the petitioner's representation for assignment cannot be considered. By Ext.P8 dated 28.7.98, the Government stayed the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7. But, by Ext.P9 dated 6.4.2000, the Government informed the petitioner that since, as per judgment dated 10.2.1998 in O.P.No. 22671/97 of this Court, the land in Re.Sy.No. 17/1A1A can be used only for Government purposes the petitioner's representation for assignment cannot be considered. Accordingly, the stay granted was also withdrawn. Thereafter, as evidenced by Ext.P11 receipt, the petitioner paid the lease rent demanded by Ext.P7. 3. Thereafter, by Ext.P12 notice dated nil-12-2000, issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, the Additional Tahsildar, Thalassery, directed the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be evicted from the land, since the petitioner's occupation of the same is unauthorized. Despite the objections of the petitioner by Ext.P13 dated 17.1.2001, the Addl. Tahsildar held that since the lease has been terminated by the collector, the petitioner's objections cannot be accepted. Accordingly prohibitory assessment was made on the petitioner under Section 8 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. By Ext.P13(a) notice of the same date, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. The petitioner filed Ext.P14 appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. By Ext.P16 dated 3.3.2001, the Revenue Divisional Officer stayed the order of the Additional Tahsildar pending disposal of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Government for assignment of the land. By Ext.P26 dated 12.4.02, the R.D.O. directed the petitioner to produce orders on the application of the petitioner for assignment. Since the petitioner did not produce any, by Ext.P27 dated 31.5.2002, The R.D.O. directed the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be evicted from the property. Thereafter, by Ext.P29 dated 20.9.2002, The village Officer directed the petitioner to lock the building and to keep the key with the petitioner for the present. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: "l) To issue a writ to certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside Ext.P13, P27 and P29 and all proceedings in pursuant to and in furtherance thereof. ll) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's applications for permanent assignment of land pending before the Govt. ll) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's applications for permanent assignment of land pending before the Govt. evidenced by Ext.P4 to P6 and P17, P18 and P21 to P23 and take emergent steps to permanently assign the land in favors of the petitioner declaring that the cause urged by the petitioner is a public purpose. lll) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider Petitioner's Ext.P24 application before the Govt. and renew the lease accordingly pending finalization of proceedings for permanent assignment of land in favors of the petitioner. lv) To issue a writ of mandamus or another appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land leased out to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 and the building thereon constructed by the petitioner's and not to resume possession pending consideration of the petitioner's application for permanent assignment of land in favors of the petitioner." 4. Although no counter affidavit is incorporated in the file, the learned Government Pleader has handed over across the bar, a copy of a counter affidavit dated 20.10.2003 stated to have been filed by the 1st respondent. The contention therein is that although the land was originally leased to the petitioner, the lease was not renewed and after 5.9.2000, lease rent was also not paid. In O.P.No. 22671/97 this Court had declared that the land measuring 4.9653 hectares in Re.Sy.No. 17/1A1A2A, which includes the 5 cents leased to the petitioner shall be protected from any kind of trespass and shall not be assigned to anybody. Therefore, by proceedings No. L5.35163/99 dated 24.2.2000, the District Collector terminated the lease and ordered to take eviction proceedings. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the application for assignment filed by the petitioner through the local MLA, Smt.Shylaja teacher, was disposed of by order No. 38232/L2/95.RD dated 3.12.97 informing her that the Koothuparamba Municipal council passed a resolution to the effect that the land shall not. Be assigned to anybody and hence the application cannot be approved. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and have considered their arguments in detail. 6. Be assigned to anybody and hence the application cannot be approved. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and have considered their arguments in detail. 6. Although the petitioner has stated that it is a registered association, it is not stated as to under which provision of law the petitioner has been registered. No registration certificate is also produced. From Ext.p1 bye-laws also the legal status of the club is not discernible. Originally the original petition was heard on 3.4.2009 on which date this defect was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner by me. However, when the matter was again heard on 6.4.2009, the petitioner had not taken any steps to prove the legal status of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has not satisfied this Court that the petitioner is a legal entity competent to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and Rules do not contemplate assignment of land in favors of an entity like the petitioner. The Act and Rules relate to assignment of land to individuals. Under Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules lands may be assigned only for 3 purposes, viz., (a) for personal cultivation (b) house sited, and (C) beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. Rule 7 speaks of priority of persons in the matter of assignment of Government land. The petitioner is not a person referred to in the Act and Rules as a person who can seek assignment of Government land. The purpose for which the petitioner seeks assignment, ie. For running a club, is also not one of the three purposes for which assignment of land is permissible under rules. Therefore, there is no legal duty cast on the Government to consider the application for assignment filed by the petitioner. Without a legal obligation on the part of the Government to consider an application for assignment filed the petitioner, the petitioner cannot seek a mandamus to the Government to dispose of such an application for assignment. In this connection it is worthwhile to note the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Varkey Mathew v. Tahsildar, 2007 (3) KLT 682, paragraph 29 of which reads thus: "29. In this connection it is worthwhile to note the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Varkey Mathew v. Tahsildar, 2007 (3) KLT 682, paragraph 29 of which reads thus: "29. The next question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to get the relief of a writ of mandamus. Writ of mandamus shall be issued in favors of a person who has got a legal right. It cannot be issued in favors of a person who does not have any legal right. There must be a corresponding duty on the statutory authority to do a particular thing in a particular manner and that he must have failed to perform his legal duties. Only in such a case, exercising jurisdiction under Art.226, the High Court will issue a writ of mandamus. In the case on hand, not only that the petitioners do not have any legal right to claim any lease under the Cardamom Rules, but also there is no duty cast on any of the respondents to grant lease in favors of the petitioners. Therefore, we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief of a writ of mandamus. 8. In any event, the 1st respondent avers that in view of the judgment of this Court in O.P.No. 22671/97, the petitioner's application for assignment filed through the local MLA was rejected. Since the Government has already rejected the application for license once, the petitioner cannot again seek a mandamus for consideration of another application filed for the same purpose. 9. The counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the petitioner cannot seek assignment of land for the three purposes mentioned in Rule 4, the petitioner can seek a direction to the Government to exercise the powers vested in them under Rule 24. Rule 24 reads thus: "24. powers of Government.- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government may, if they consider it necessary so to do in public interest, assign land dispensing with any of the provisions contained in these rules and subject to such conditions, if any, as they may impose." I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to seek a mandamus to the Government to exercise powers vested in them under R.24. R.24 only saves the powers of the Government to assign land dispensing with provisions of the rules in public interest. R.24 only saves the powers of the Government to assign land dispensing with provisions of the rules in public interest. That rule does not confer any right on the petitioner to seek a direction to the Government to exercise powers vested in them under the said section. Even if the petitioner's contention that promoting the intellectual, mental, spiritual development and welfare of Government and Semi Government employees for which the petitioner club is alleged to have been formed, is a public purpose, Government cannot be compelled to consider an application for assignment of land for that purpose invoking Rule 24, in so far as it is absolutely for the Government to decide whether in public interest any land has to be assigned notwithstanding the provisions of the Rules. The 'public interest' mentioned therein is not all public purposes, but only purposes which ensure to the benefit of the people of the State generally. That too, nobody can compel the Government to assign land in public interest. The said section can only support an assignment by the Government dispensing with the provisions of the rules in public interest and does not confer any right on anybody to claim an assignment in public interest. Land is very dear in kerala, Government land is all the more so. Government is finding it difficult to find land for its own use and for distribution to the tribal people who have been displaced from their natural habitat. Therefore, the purpose for which R.24 can be invoked has to be a purpose much more important than the one for which the petitioner desires it. In this connection, it should be noted that of late the Government has started resuming lands leased to private clubs in the State, which would go to show that the Government does not consider that running of such clubs is in public interest at all. Therefore, the petitioner cannot compel the Government to invoke Rule 24, even for that purpose, if at all. 10. The 1st respondent has stated that in reply to the representation of the petitioner for assignment of the land through Smt.K.K. Shylaja teacher, MLA, she was informed that the Kuthuparamba Municipal Council has passed a resolution requesting that the land shall not be assigned to anybody. This is not controverted by the petitioner. 10. The 1st respondent has stated that in reply to the representation of the petitioner for assignment of the land through Smt.K.K. Shylaja teacher, MLA, she was informed that the Kuthuparamba Municipal Council has passed a resolution requesting that the land shall not be assigned to anybody. This is not controverted by the petitioner. If the same is correct, in view of Section 3 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, the land cannot be assigned. S.3 reads thus: "3. Assignment of Government Land.- (1) Government land may be assigned by the Government or by any prescribed authority either absolutely or subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. (2) No Government land assignable for public purpose may be assigned under subsection (1) without consulting the local authority as defined in the kerala panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or the Kerala Municipality Act,1994 (20 of 1994) as the case may be and if such local authority required such land, for carrying out any of the functions assigned to it, Government may set apart such land for that purpose." 11. In this regard, I note the view of the Division Bench in the matter of assignment of Government land in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government, 2007 (3) KLT 702, in which , in paragraph 15, it was held thus: "15. The various provisions in the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and the kerala Land Assignment Rules would unmistakably show that the Act and Rules are intended to protect landless people by assigning to them Government lands for cultivation and other purposes. The Act provides for assignment of Government land absolutely or subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. The Rules provides for assignment of lands on registry for purposes of personal cultivation. The Rules also provides for granting assignment of small extends of land for constructing houses and for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. The rules contain provisions for extending priority to landless people, members of scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Ex-serviceman, persons disabled in active military service, persons who are dependents of those who are killed or disabled while in active military service, small holders whose family income is less than Rs. 10,000/-, certain category of kumkidars etc. The procedure for assignment is provided in the Rules. 10,000/-, certain category of kumkidars etc. The procedure for assignment is provided in the Rules. Provision is made for preparing the lists of lands to be reserved for Government or public purposes and the lands to be set apart for assignment on registry. The lists are to be approved by the Government or an authorized authority. The authority to approve the list of lands available for lease or license shall be District Collector. Various authorities are also provided to whom the applications under the different categories are to be submitted. We are of the view that the Act and Rules are not intended for enriching persons who hold extensive lands. Assignment on Registry of Government lands to such persons would defeat the very purpose of the Act and Rules. There is no vested right in any person to claim assignment on registry of Government land. The claim made by the petitioner originated and continued on encroachment. Such a person cannot have any legal right to claim that land. Provision for assignment of lands to encroachers is with a specific purpose. It is intended to protect such of the encroachers who are landless and downtrodden. They too have no vested right to get assignment on registry. The scheme of the Act and the Rules would unmistakably show it. Mighty people do not come anywhere near the benevolent protective umbrella of the Act and Rules. True, a person may desire to annex to his property the neighbouring lands, though it is Government land. Such a desire is not recognized or protected under the Act and Rules." Again in Paragraph 16 thereof, the Division Bench examined the scope of Rule 24 thus: '16. Next, we shall consider whether the petitioner can take shelter under r.24. Rule 24 reads thus: "24. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government may, if they consider it necessary so to in public interest, assign land dispensing with any of the provisions contained in these rules and subject to such conditions, if any, as they may impose." To invoke R.24, Government should consider it necessary in public interest to assign land. Public interest is the main ingredient for the application of R.24. Public interest is interest of the people at large. The purpose for which land is to be assigned invoking R.24 should be one for the benefit of the public in any sense of the term. Public interest is the main ingredient for the application of R.24. Public interest is interest of the people at large. The purpose for which land is to be assigned invoking R.24 should be one for the benefit of the public in any sense of the term. Private interest of an individual to acquire more property could never be termed as public interest. It is relevant to note that R.24 empowers the Government to assign land dispensing with any of the provisions of the Rules alone. It does not empower the Government to dispense with any of the provisions of the Act. S.3(2) of the Act is relevant in the context. It reads: "(2) No Government land assignable for public purpose may be assigned under sub-s(1) without consulting the local authority as defined in the Kerala panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1894) as the case may be and if such local authority required such land for carrying out any of the functions assigned to it, Government may set apart such land for that purpose." We have held that the land in question comes under R.11(2)(viii). Such a land cannot be assigned without consulting the local authority. R.24, in our view, does not empower the Government to completely do away with the scheme of the Act and Rules and their purpose and intent R.24 could only be exercised in limited sphere and that too adhering to the paramount consideration of public interest. We hold that the petitioner cannot take recourse to R.24 as well.' My findings as above are perfectly in keeping with the said Division Bench decision. 12. In any view of the matter, in view of Ext.P10 judgment in O.P.No. 22671 of 1997, no land in that particular Sy.No., which includes the land which the petitioner seeks assignment of, cannot be assigned at all. In paragraph 4 of Ext.P10, this Court has held thus; "4. It is seen from the order Ext.P20 that Government land was very scare in Kuthuparamba area that the kuthuparamba panchayat has been upgraded as a Municipality, several Government offices have to be opened in the Kuthuparamba Municipal area for which no Government land other than the land in R.S.17/1A1A2A, a portion of which is claimed assignment of by the petitioner, was available and that the land has been reserved for Government purpose. These facts clearly indicate that the particular land in question cannot be assigned to anyone including the petitioner. While, therefore, overruling the contention on behalf of the petitioner, I also direct the Government and the District Collector, Kannur to ensure that no part of the land in R.S.17/1A1A2A is assigned to any person. I also direct the District Collector to ensure that the extent of 4.9653 hectares of land in that survey number is protected from any trespass and is made use of solely for public purpose." In view of the said judgment, the land in question cannot be used for purposes other than purposes of the Government or that of the Municipality. 13. For all the above reasons, I find no merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The respondents shall see that the petitioner is evicted from the land and the land is resumed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.