Judgment :- The above writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to assign the lands stated to be in the petitioners occupation comprised in S.No.534, in Perumbakkam Village, Pallikaranai Firka, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District measuring a extent of about 2 acres. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a possession and enjoyment the said lands classified to be Manavari Tharisu and it is also stated that he purchased the same from one Ansari Beg. The petitioner further submits that his name entered in the adangal extract for the fasli 1410. The petitioner claiming to be a landless poor had made an application to the government for lease of the said lands and the Tasildar, Tambaram is said to have a recommended the same for consideration. The petitioner places reliance on G.O.Ms.No. 555 dated 06.08.2006, wherein the Government had decided to allot two acres of Tharisu lands to the landless poor for the agricultural purpose. According to the petitioner the land in his possession are classified as Tharisu and the said Government order would be applicable to his case. With the above facts the petitioner has filed in the present writ petition. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that Survey No.534 covers a total extent of 34.88.5 hectares and the Government has divided the said lands and allotted for various Government purposes and the land is classified as Tharisu as per the village account. It is further stated that the water coming from Pallikkaranai swamp area to reach the sea through oggiam Madavu will have to pass through Perumbakkam Village and since major part of the land has been alienated for other other purposes and the channels are blocked, during rainy season, there is flooding in Velacherry, Perumbakkam and Pallikkaranai area and hence to avoid the same, it is essential to transfer the land to the Public Works Department for construction of Rain Water Canal. 4. It is further stated that as per the G.O.Ms.No.1427, Revenue Department dated 11.05.1971, assignment of Promboke land for cultivation is banned, since the lands in Tambaram Taluk lies within 32 km radius of Metropolitan City. It is further stated that the petitioner attempted to make new encroachment to an extent of 10 acres and complaint has been lodged against the petitioner before the Pallikkaranai Police Station. It is further stated that the petitioner attempted to make new encroachment to an extent of 10 acres and complaint has been lodged against the petitioner before the Pallikkaranai Police Station. The petitioner has also filed a suit before the District Munsiff Court, Alandur and the same is pending. In effect, it has been stated that the petitioner is attempting to grab the Government land and he is not entitled for any indulgence. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials on record. 6. At the outset there is no vested right for the petitioner to compel the Government to execute a lease in his favour in respect of Government ends classified as "Tharisu". In view of the categorical stand taken in the counter affidavit that the land is required for certain other Governmental purposes and that a Rain Water Canal is to be constructed, which undoubtly would be in public interest, the petitioner cannot claim any right claiming that the land should be granted on lease or assigned to him. The Government order, which has been relied upon by the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.555 dated 06.08.2006 would have no application to the facts of this case, since the Government have banned assignment within the Metropolitan city area, by G.O.Ms.No.1427 dated 11.05.1971. 7. Therefore, the prayer sought for the writ petitioner cannot be granted. Further it is to be noted that the request made by the petitioner for grant of assignment has been rejected as early as March 2007 and the petitioner has been informed that the Government has banned assignment in belt areas and his request is not feasibly of compliance. This rejection of the petitioners request has not been challenged. 8. For all the above reasons the relief sought for in the writ petition to issue a writ of Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.