JUDGMENT A. Hariprasad, J. Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Following reliefs were sought therein: "i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exts.P1 and P5 and quash the same; ii) Allow the applications for assignment of 33 cents of land in R.S.601/5 (old Sy.No.241/2) of Cheranelloor Village which forms part of the pond as per Ext.P1 survey sketch pending as per Exts.P1 to P4, P6 & P8 in accordance with Kerala Land Acquisition Act read with Rules: iii) Issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and iv) Award cost to the petitioner." 2. Brief averments in the petition, necessary for disposal of this case, are the following: Appellant's father deceased Abdul Rauf had ancestral properties in Cheranellur Village. His father had given about 1.5 acres of land in the same Village to 15 kudikidappukars under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Another 16 cents belonging to him was acquired for NH 17. Appellant's father had eight children, out of which seven are alive, including the appellant. It is the contention that the appellant and each one of his siblings will only get less than 10 cents of land as inherited property. In the middle of the property owned by the appellant's father in Sy. No.241/2 (R.S.No.601/5) of Cheranallur Village, there was a pond having an area of 33 cents. All the properties around the said pond belonged to the ancestors of the appellant. The pond was in the possession of the family of the appellant for more than four decades. During rainy season, the pond will be fully covered with water. During summer, mixed crops were cultivated known as 'kondal cultivation'. 3. Appellant's father applied for assignment of the pond in the year 1981. The proceedings were kept in abeyance by the authorities along with other similar applications. Appellant's father again made an application on 20.04.1994 (Ext.P10) and at the instance of the Revenue Authorities another application was submitted on 21.07.1994 (Ext.P11). So many reminders were also sent by appellant's father requesting for assignment of lands. Pending decision on the applications, appellant's father died. Then, appellant's mother submitted another application on 14.12.2000 (Ext.P14). Appellant's father again made an application on 20.04.1994 (Ext.P10) and at the instance of the Revenue Authorities another application was submitted on 21.07.1994 (Ext.P11). So many reminders were also sent by appellant's father requesting for assignment of lands. Pending decision on the applications, appellant's father died. Then, appellant's mother submitted another application on 14.12.2000 (Ext.P14). No decision was taken by the authorities till the death of appellant's mother on 07.12.2004. Thereafter, appellant and his siblings jointly filed representations before the 1st respondent on 11.01.2006 (Ext.P16). 4. Appellant approached this Court many a times seeking directions to the respondents for considering his application for land assignment. Ultimately Exts.P1 and P5 orders were passed. They are arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by non application of mind. Hence the writ petition was filed seeking the above mentioned reliefs. 5. 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. Contentions therein, stated shortly, are the following: Neither the appellant nor his predecessors have any right to claim assignment of land. As per the revenue records of Cheranallur Village, 33 cents of land comprised in R.S.No.601/5 is classified as 'kulam puramboke' (pond). The said land is in the possession of Government and it is bounded by a Panchayat road, leading to NH 17, on the southern side and private properties on all the three other sides. Appellant has no land adjacent to the kulam puramboke. The said land is not suitable for agricultural purpose. Appellant is not entitled for assignment of land. Writ petition is filed suppressing the facts that the appellant is not in possession of the land and the land had already been handed over to the evictees for International Container Transshipment Terminal Project ("ICTT", for short). Fact that the evictees had already been issued with assignment orders has also been suppressed by the appellant. Besides, they have started construction of dwelling houses over the and. Orders passed by the Revenue Authorities on the application submitted by the appellant and his ancestors were proper and legal. 6. Appellant filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent reiterating his contentions and refuting the allegations in the counter affidavit. 7. Heard Shri K.M.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri M.K.Aboobacker, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. As directed by us, the learned Senior Government Pleader produced the original file relating to this matter. 7. Heard Shri K.M.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri M.K.Aboobacker, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. As directed by us, the learned Senior Government Pleader produced the original file relating to this matter. We have carefully perused the records. 8. Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (Land Assignment Act", in short) regulates the assignment of Government land. Sec.3 of the Land Assignment Act gives the power to the Government on certain grounds to assign a Government land, which is defined in Sec.2 of the said Act. Sec.4 of the Land Assignment Act deals with the procedure to be followed before the lands are to be assigned. Sec.7 of the Land Assignment Act is about the rule making power of the Government. 9. By virtue of the rule making power, the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 ("Land Assignment Rules", in short) was enacted. Rule 4 of the Land Assignment Rules enumerates the purposes for which the Government land may be assigned. It says that Government lands may be assigned on registery for the purposes of personal cultivation, house sites and beneficial enjoyment of the adjoining registered holdings. Contentions raised by the appellant herein would show that he claims assignment of Government land for the beneficial enjoyment of the adjoining registered holdings. Also he makes a claim on the basis that the kulam puramboke was used for cultivation. 10. As mentioned earlier, appellant's father filed applications for land assignment on different dates as evidenced by Exts.P10 and P11. After his death, appellant's mother submitted another application, ie., Ext.P14. Ext.P16 is the application submitted by the appellant and other legal heirs of his father on 11.01.2006. When there was inordinate delay in considering and disposing the application, appellant approached this Court for appropriate reliefs. This Court directed the District Collector, Ernakulam to take a decision on the application for land assignment. When that was dismissed, he again approached this Court with a writ petition, which was dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment. Ext.P2 judgment was challenged by the appellant in writ appeal, wherein Ext.P4 judgment was passed. As per Ext.P4 judgment, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram (3rd respondent) was directed to consider the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the District Collector on merits within a time frame and untrammelled by the observations in Ext.P2 judgment. Ext.P2 judgment was challenged by the appellant in writ appeal, wherein Ext.P4 judgment was passed. As per Ext.P4 judgment, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram (3rd respondent) was directed to consider the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the District Collector on merits within a time frame and untrammelled by the observations in Ext.P2 judgment. As per Ext.P5 order, the 3rd respondent considered the appeal filed by the appellant and the appeal was dismissed. Ext.P1 order passed by the District Collector and Ext.P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Land Revenue) are challenged herein. 11. Meanwhile, Ext.P5 order was taken in revision before the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent as per Ext.P8 order found that the Government have no revisionary power to entertain the revision petition filed by the appellant. 12. Now we shall consider the rules relevant for disposal of the appeal. Rule 5 of the Land Assignment Rules prescribes the maximum limit of land to be assigned for cultivation. Relevant portion of Rule 5 of the Land Assignment Rules, applicable for our purpose, is extracted hereunder: "5. Maximum limit to be assigned for cultivation.- (1) The extent of land that shall be registered in favour of a single family for personal cultivation by members of the family shall not ordinarily exceed – (a) in the case of unoccupied lands, not more than fifty cents of land, whether wet or dry, in the plains and not more than one acre of wet or dry lands in hilly tract; (b) in the case of lands held on lease, whether current or time expired or by way of encroachment not considered objectionable, the lessee or the encroacher as the case may be will, be eligible for assignment of not more than 50 cents of land, whether wet or dry, in the plains, and one acre of land, whether wet or dry in hilly tracts. Land, if any, held in excess of this area shall be surrendered to Government and no compensation shall be payable for the lands so surrendered. (2) When a family owns or holds any land over which it has proprietary right or has security of tenure, only the balance of extent of Government land necessary to make up the extent admissible under sub-rule (1) shall be granted to it on registry. (2) When a family owns or holds any land over which it has proprietary right or has security of tenure, only the balance of extent of Government land necessary to make up the extent admissible under sub-rule (1) shall be granted to it on registry. Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule:- (i) xxxxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxxxx (iii) for the purpose of calculating the extent of land that may be assigned to a family, the total extent of land possessed or held with proprietary right or fixity of tenure by the head of the family and also the members of the family both individually and collectively shall be taken into account. Assignment made in favour of a family under these rules shall, for the purpose of calculating the maximum extent that may be so assigned, include assignment made to members of the family both individually and collectively, the total extent so assigned not exceeding the maximum area that may be assigned to that family. The area under encroachment by a member of a family shall, for the purpose of these rules, be deemed as the area under encroachment by the family." (underline supplied) 13. This rule prescribes the maximum limit of land that can be assigned for cultivation. As mentioned above, the appellant stakes the claim for two reasons, viz., personal cultivation and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. Rule 7 of the Land Assignment Rules mentions about the priority to be observed in the assignment. Going by the contentions raised by the appellant and also from the records produced, it is seen that the appellant's predecessor was owning 1.37 acres of land in the above survey numbers situated in Cheranallur Village. 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit specifically refuted appellant's claim for land assignment. It is the specific contention of the respondents that neither the appellant's father nor the appellant is entitled to claim assignment for the reason that the appellant's father was the registered holder of 13 ares of land in survey No.533/8 and 42 ares in survey No.550/10 of Cheranallur Village in Kanayannur Taluk. Hence, going by the provisions in Rule 5 of the Land Assignment Rules, it can be seen that the appellant's claim for assignment of land for cultivation is not legally sustainable. 14. In this context, the decision in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government (2007 (3) KLT 702) is relevant. Hence, going by the provisions in Rule 5 of the Land Assignment Rules, it can be seen that the appellant's claim for assignment of land for cultivation is not legally sustainable. 14. In this context, the decision in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government (2007 (3) KLT 702) is relevant. Scope of Rule 5 of the Land Assignment Rules, expressely that of Rule 5(2), was considered therein and held thus: "The definition of 'family' under R.2(d) is wide. It includes children and even parents. Children who have attained majority also come within the definition of 'family'. The only requirement is that the children should be either living with the parents or dependent on them. So far as parents are concerned, they must be solely dependent on the person concerned. The definition of 'family' is wider than the family as contemplated in S.82 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act which provides for ceiling area. By the operation of R.5(2) read with Explanation (iii), the petitioner cannot claim any extent of land on registry since he holds more than the extent which could be assigned under the Rules. Such a person cannot aspire for any assignment of Government land on registry under R.5. .........." 15. It is pertinent to note that the appellant makes a claim, which derives from his father's right. As the appellant's father is not entitled to get assignment, certainly the appellant also will have no right to claim assignment. There is no material available to find that appellant's father or appellant ever cultivated the land. Hence for the above mentioned reasons, appellant's claim for assignment of land for cultivation is legally not maintainable. 16. Learned Single Judge relied on Rule 6 of the Land Assignment Rules to consider the merits of the appellant's claim. Relevant provision of Rule 6 reads as follows: "6. Assignment for house site and for beneficial enjoyment.- (1) The extent of Government land that shall be registered in favour of a family as house site shall not exceed fifteen cents (6.072 ares). The assignee shall be liable to pay land value for house sites at the rate of Rs.200 per cent. Assignment for house site and for beneficial enjoyment.- (1) The extent of Government land that shall be registered in favour of a family as house site shall not exceed fifteen cents (6.072 ares). The assignee shall be liable to pay land value for house sites at the rate of Rs.200 per cent. (2) The extent of Government land that may be granted on registry when the same is indispensably required for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings shall not exceed, in the case of one registered holding fifteen cents (6.072 ares) Note.-(1) The authority competent to assign land for beneficial enjoyment shall be the Revenue Divisional Officer. He may pass order of assignment in such cases only after personally satisfying himself that the land is absolutely necessary for that purpose. xxxxxxxxxxxx" Learned Single Judge disallowed the claim of the appellant by placing reliance on Rule 6 (1) of the Land Assignment Rules, which actually does not arise for consideration in this case. As mentioned earlier, the appellant claims assignment of Government land for cultivation and for beneficial enjoyment. He never claimed the land for house site. Hence we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge for disallowing the claim of the appellant. We have already seen that the appellant is not entitled to get assignment of land for cultivation. Now, the question that survives for consideration is whether he is eligible to get the land assigned for the beneficial enjoyment. 17. When we consider the provisions in Rule 6(2) of the Land Assignment Rules, it can be seen that the appellant cannot claim assignment of 33 cents of land for beneficial enjoyment as it exceeds the permissible limit of assignment. Moreover, the contentions of the appellant that the disputed property is surrounded by the property belonging to his family and it lies as a land-locked property are belied by the materials produced for our scrutiny. 18. It is the consistent case of the respondents that the appellant's predecessor-in-interest was not entitled to get the assignment. Even when the appellant made a claim before the District Collector much earlier to the litigations, the respondent took up a stand that the land in question was required for rehabilitating the evictees affected by ICTT Project. 18. It is the consistent case of the respondents that the appellant's predecessor-in-interest was not entitled to get the assignment. Even when the appellant made a claim before the District Collector much earlier to the litigations, the respondent took up a stand that the land in question was required for rehabilitating the evictees affected by ICTT Project. Records produced in this case show the appellant's contention that the land in question is surrounded by his family property is totally incorrect. Revenue records show that a Panchayat road leading to NH 17 is in existence on the southern side of the property. On all the other three sides, there are private properties belonging to strangers. Not only legally, but factually also, the appellant's contentions are unsustainable and therefore, he is not entitled to get assignment under Rule 6 (2) of the Land Assignment Rules also. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was an unjustifiable act on the part of the respondents to transfer the land for rehabilitating the evictees affected by ICTT Project. Appellant contended that Ext.P1 order of the District Collector, Ernakulam and Ext.P5 order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram are totally illegal. Learned Senior Government Pleader contended that neither the appellant nor his predecessor-in-interest ever possessed the land. It was not enjoyed by them at any point of time. According to the respondents, the land was in the possession of the Government. Learned Senior Government Pleader also contended that even at the first opportunity, respondents had made it clear that the land was required for other public purposes. We are of the opinion that Ext.P5 order lacks the legal requirement of making a speaking order, in spite of the direction by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment to consider the matters on merit. Ext.P5 order is bereft of details and the finding part of Ext.P5 order is very cryptic. However, we may not be justified in interfering with Ext.P5 order, for the reason that the appellant failed to establish his legal right to get the land assigned. In other words, Ext.P5 order stands not because of its strength, but because of the debility of the appellant's case. Relevant rules mentioned above and the facts and circumstances show that the appellant's claim is not legally sustainable. 20. In other words, Ext.P5 order stands not because of its strength, but because of the debility of the appellant's case. Relevant rules mentioned above and the facts and circumstances show that the appellant's claim is not legally sustainable. 20. That apart, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the disputed land has been assigned to ICTT Project evictees and they have started construction of dwelling houses in the property. In the absence of any legal right on the part of the appellant and also considering the subsequent events, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to get any relief claimed in the petition. We confirm the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge for the reasons mentioned above. In the result, i. Writ Appeal is dismissed. ii. There is no order as to costs.