JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of assignment of land sought for, by Exhibit P9. 2. The petitioner claimed that, he, along with his wife, is in possession of 5 cents of puramboke land in Survey No. 575/1 of Sasthamcotta Village. The application filed at Exhibit P3 is for assignment of the said 5 cents which is rejected by Exhibit P9. The petitioner, in the above writ petition, challenge Exhibit P6 order of the Government; which was in pursuance of the judgment at Exhibit P5, to the extent it finds the 2 cents of land assigned to the wife of the petitioner and the further 3 cents said to be in the possession of the petitioner being included in the market puramboke. The petitioner also challenge Exhibit P9 order declining assignment of 1.73 ares of property. 3. Admittedly the property now sought for assignment is comprised in a total of 10.98 acres, which is a revenue puramboke. The petitioner's wife was assigned 2 cents of property for the purpose of building a residential house. The petitioner is then said to have encroached into 3 cents of property for beneficial enjoyment of the 2 cents which was assigned to the wife of the petitioner. The Panchayat having taken proceedings against the petitioner for eviction from the 3 cents of property adjoining the 2 cents assigned to his wife, the petitioner was before the Civil Court with a suit, in which Exhibit P1 judgment was passed. The injunction sought against the Panchayat, from demolishing the structure situated in the plaint schedule property, was granted as per Exhibit P1. A further attempt to evict made by the Panchayat in the year 2000 also was challenged by the petitioner before the Civil Court, which ended in Exhibit P2 judgment being passed, again restraining the Panchayat by an order of permanent prohibitory injunction from entering into the plaint schedule property and committing any mischief. The Panchayat filed an appeal against the same, which stood dismissed as per Exhibit P11 judgment. In such circumstance, the Panchayat cannot have any claim against the petitioner's property. 4. Subsequently, the Panchayat was before this Court with a writ petition claiming that 10.98 acres, which were described as "revenue puramboke", vests with the Panchayat and the revenue authorities could not assign the same to the party respondents additionally impleaded in the writ petition. In such circumstance, the Panchayat cannot have any claim against the petitioner's property. 4. Subsequently, the Panchayat was before this Court with a writ petition claiming that 10.98 acres, which were described as "revenue puramboke", vests with the Panchayat and the revenue authorities could not assign the same to the party respondents additionally impleaded in the writ petition. By Exhibit P5 judgment, the Government was directed to consider the claim of the Panchayat. The consideration was made as per Exhibit P6 and the claim of the Panchayat stood rejected. 5. The Government, by Exhibit P6, categorically found that 10.98 acres of land comprised in Block No. 13 in Survey No. 575/1 of Sasthamcotta Village is described as revenue puramboke and vests with the Government. It was also found that the market puramboke land, of an area of around 2.50 acres, is vested with the Sasthamcotta Grama Panchayat only for maintenance. The Government also, by Exhibit P6, expressed the decision of the Government to reserve the land in question as revenue puramboke land and rejected the claim of the Panchayat for any right over the entire 10.98 acres of land, including 2.50 acres of market puramboke land. Hence, even going by Exhibit P6 order of the Government, pursuant to Exhibit P5, the Panchayat has been given possession of the 2.50 acres of market puramboke only for the purpose of maintenance of the market. 6. The Panchayat obviously has not challenged Exhibit P6 order of the Government. In such circumstance, going by Exhibit P6 order also, the Panchayat cannot claim any right as such over the 2.50 acres of market puramboke land and, hence, cannot also attempt any eviction from the said land, which, however, the Government could do in accordance with law. As was noticed above, the Panchayat with respect to the land specifically possessed by the petitioner; is restrained by the order of injunction of the Civil Court. Be that as it may, the right of the Government over the revenue puramboke vested with them cannot be ignored. It is in this context that the petitioner submits that the orders passed at Exhibits P6 and P9 have to be set aside. 7. Be that as it may, the right of the Government over the revenue puramboke vested with them cannot be ignored. It is in this context that the petitioner submits that the orders passed at Exhibits P6 and P9 have to be set aside. 7. In Exhibit P6 there is a categoric finding that the 5 cents of property which is said to be in the possession of the petitioner and his wife, respectively an extent of 3 and 2 cents, is included in the market puramboke. A challenge to Exhibit P6 under Article 226 cannot be entertained, since the factual aspects, as to the property being within the "market puramboke", cannot be examined in the instant proceeding. In this context, it is to be noticed that by order dated 02.07.2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed a report and sketch to be obtained from the Tahsildar, Kunnathoor regarding the 5 cents of revenue puramboke in Old Sy.No.575/1 of Sasthamcotta Village in the possession of the petitioner and also 2.50 acres of market puramboke in the very same survey number in the possession of the Sasthamcotta Grama Panchayat. 8. The learned Government Pleader has, in pursuance of the said order, produced the sketch by a statement dated 07.08.2014; which indicates that the petitioner's wife was assigned 0.81 ares of property for constructing a residential house and subsequent to that the properties on the east and west, extending to about 4 cents, was illegally encroached upon by the petitioner. The sketch also indicated that the property occupied by the petitioner is included in the 2.50 acres of market puramboke, which is said to be in the possession of the Panchayat. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, in which it has been categorically stated that but for the 45 cents, the balance properties have been assigned to various persons. 9. As was noticed earlier, the Panchayat is interdicted by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court from taking any proceedings against the petitioner for eviction of the petitioner from the lands in his possession. The Panchayat also cannot claim any vested right on the land for the purpose of initiating eviction proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 for reason of the specific decision of the Government to retain the entire lands as revenue puramboke. The Panchayat also cannot claim any vested right on the land for the purpose of initiating eviction proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 for reason of the specific decision of the Government to retain the entire lands as revenue puramboke. There is slight confusion on a reading of Exhibit P6 order insofar as the Panchayat is said to have been vested with the property only for maintenance. The use of the word 'vested' is a misnomer and the reading of the order makes it clear that the market puramboke remained with the Government, but the Panchayat was given the possession and the duty to maintain the same. The desire of the Government to retain the revenue puramboke having been categorically expressed in the said order, the possession of the market puramboke insofar as the Panchayat is concerned, is only for the purpose of 'proper maintenance' and it cannot claim any vesting as such of the said properties. 10. In the above circumstances, if at all any proceedings for eviction is to be taken, it has to be taken by the Government and not by the Panchayat. The Government having not taken any proceedings as of now, it would be proper for this Court not to observe anything on the merits of the matter. As of now, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with Exhibit P9 order insofar as the 4 cents said to be in the possession of the petitioner having been found to be within the market puramboke, which is said to be in the possession of the Panchayat and, in any event, is a revenue puramboke. Considerable persuasion is afforded to the said view by the sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor based on the direction issued by this Court. However, if any eviction proceedings are to be taken, necessarily the same should be on the basis of proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act; which the petitioner could challenge in appropriate proceedings. Though the sketch now produced would not be relevant in the proceedings if any taken under the Land Conservancy Act; it affords sufficient cause to decline invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with Ext. P9 order. The claim of beneficial enjoyment cannot be sustained on the application of the petitioner since the earlier assignment of 2 cents is in his wife's name. P9 order. The claim of beneficial enjoyment cannot be sustained on the application of the petitioner since the earlier assignment of 2 cents is in his wife's name. The family of the petitioner having been assigned a land there can be no further assignment claimed under the Land Assignment Act of 1960 and the Rules of 1964 on the basis of an encroachment made of properties adjacent to that assigned. The writ petition, hence, would stand dismissed, clearly finding that the Panchayat cannot initiate any proceedings against the petitioner for eviction or otherwise with respect to the land, by reason of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court and the decision of the Government; but, however, reserving the right of the Government to take such proceedings subject, however, to the contentions taken up by the petitioner before the authorities. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.