JUDGMENT : The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of one Puthiyakath Kinattingal Sainaba, who was in possession of 2 Acres of Government Puramboke land in Sy.No.59/14 of Mangalam Village, which was leased out to her for a considerably a long period. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P22 order dated 09.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent District Collector; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take steps to assign 2 Acres of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.59/14 of Mangalam Village, as sought for in Ext.P15 representation dated 19.10.2017 made by the petitioner, along with other legal heirs of the deceased Sainaba, before the 2nd respondent. 2. On 09.08.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Tirur, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the counter affidavit read thus; “3. It is submitted that the land in question comprised in Survey No.59/14 having an extent of 80.97 Ares (2 Acres) of land in Mangalam Village in Tirur Taluk is included in the revenue records as Puzha puramboke. True copy of the settlement register pertaining to the property is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R3(a). Moreover, a true copy of the report regarding the nature of the land prepared by the Village Officer is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R3(b). The above said land was leased, in condition of permissive possession, to Smt. Sainabha, Puthiyakath Kinattingal, the deceased mother of the petitioner for agricultural purpose as per Rule 15(1) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The legal heirs including the petitioner had renewed the lease up to 2013. Thereafter, the same was not renewed. In 2014 the said land was proposed for a Government project named 'Zero Land Less Kerala' for the purpose of distributing land to landless people. For the above purpose, the said land was taken into possession by the Village Officer, Mangalam on the basis of the direction of the Tahsildar after terminating the permissive possession of the lease holder. Since 2013 the land is Revenue Puramboke in revenue records and the Tahsildar is being conducted auction for usufructs pertaining to the property. 4. For the above purpose, the said land was taken into possession by the Village Officer, Mangalam on the basis of the direction of the Tahsildar after terminating the permissive possession of the lease holder. Since 2013 the land is Revenue Puramboke in revenue records and the Tahsildar is being conducted auction for usufructs pertaining to the property. 4. the, the petitioner and others submitted a representation before the District Collector, Malappuram for assigning the land on 19.10.2017. Meantime, the petitioner also approached before this Hon'ble Court seeking a direction to take steps to assign the land in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased mother. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.37780/17 dated 24.11.2017 directed the 2nd respondent, i.e., the District Collector, Malappuram to consider and pass orders on representation submitted by the petitioner within the period of two months. The Deputy Collector (LR), Malappuram heard the petitioner on 30.01.2018 on behalf of the District Collector and recorded a statement. In pursuant to hearing the 3rd respondent had submitted a detailed report before the District Collector, Malappu8ram that all the heirs of Smt. Sainabha have good financial condition and they have owned land in their villages and one of them is working in abroad and all of them are in sound economic position. The availability of public land has been shrinking over in our State and the assignment is possible only for the residential purposes to those who are landless people. Now a days the Government have a strategic policy for the assignment of public land for landless people mainly for residential purposes. 5. It is submitted that after considering all above elements the District Collector, Malappuram had rejected the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Collector, Malapuram, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C) No.40707/2018 and obtained the judgment on 13.12.2018. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent had issued notice to the legal heirs of Smt.Sainaba for hearing and recorded their statement on 29.05.2019. As per the statement recorded from the persons who appeared before the Tahsildar, it is very clear that the family members of the deceased mother have possessed around 2.5 acres of land in total in their ownership in different villages and paying land tax to the Government. The 3rd respondent submitted a detailed report to the 2nd respondent along with the statements given by the petitioner on 31.05.2019. The 3rd respondent submitted a detailed report to the 2nd respondent along with the statements given by the petitioner on 31.05.2019. ON the basis of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.40707/18 and the report of the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner and other members to appear before the District Collector on 28.06.2019. The petitioner and his brother Sri. Abdul Nazer were present before the 2nd respondent in the presence of 3rd and 4th respondent. On the basis of the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court, the District Collector evaluated all elements connected with the claim of the petitioner and the genenuity of the subject of land assignment. The District Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner and other children of the family of Smt.Sainaba never deserve to get the two acres of Government puramboke land in R.S.No.59/14 in Mangalam Village in Tirur Taluk. Through the proceedings NO.C2-132925/17 dated 09.07.2019, the 2nd respondent implemented and obeyed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.40707/2018 and send copies to the concerned petitioners and offices.” 4. On 15.10.2020, when this writ petition taken up for consideration, during the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Varkey Abraham v. the Secretary to Government and others [ 2007 (3) KHC 365 ] and also that of the Apex Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Dead) as per Legal Representatives and Others v. District Collector, Chittoor District and Others [ 2019 (4) SCC 500 ]. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P10 order dated 31.05.2019 of the 2nd respondent District Collector, whereby Ext.P15 request made by the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Sainaba, for assignment of 2 Acres of Government Puramboke land in Sy.No.59/14 of Mangalam Village, stands rejected. 7. As can be seen from Ext.P20 order, the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Sainaba are holding around 2.5 Acres of land in their ownership, in different villages, and paying land tax to the Government. The 3rd respondent Tahsildar submitted a detailed report to the 2nd respondent District Collector on 31.05.2019. 7. As can be seen from Ext.P20 order, the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Sainaba are holding around 2.5 Acres of land in their ownership, in different villages, and paying land tax to the Government. The 3rd respondent Tahsildar submitted a detailed report to the 2nd respondent District Collector on 31.05.2019. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P19 judgment of this Court dated 13.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No.40707 of 2018, the 2nd respondent District Collector conducted personal hearing on 28.06.2019. The petitioner along with his brother, one Abdul Nazer, were heard by the 2nd respondent. After considering the arguments of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent in Ext.P20 order came to a conclusion that the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Sainaba are not entitled to get assignment of 2 Acres of Government Puramboke land in Sy.No.59/14 of Mangalam Village in Tirur Taluk. 8. The Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Act') was enacted to regulate the assignment of Government lands and to remove doubts as to the validity of the limitations and restrictions imposed in assignments of land by the Government or under their authority. 8. The Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Act') was enacted to regulate the assignment of Government lands and to remove doubts as to the validity of the limitations and restrictions imposed in assignments of land by the Government or under their authority. Clause (1) of Section 2 of the Act reads thus; “(1) The following, that is to say:- (i) all public roads, streets, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches, dykes and fences on or beside the same; (ii) the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below high water mark, the beds and banks of rivers, streams, irrigation and drainage channels; (iii) all canals, tanks, lakes, back-waters and water courses; (iv) all land wherever situated, save in so far as the same are the property of- (a) jenmis or holders of Inams; or (b) holders of land in any way subject to the payment of land revenue to the Government; or (c) any other registered holder of land in proprietary right; or (d) any person holding land under grant from the Government otherwise than by way of lease or licence; or (e) any person claiming through or holding under any of the persons referred to in clause (a), (b), (c) or (d), are, and are hereby declared to be, Government lands except as may be otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, subject to all rights of way and other public rights and to the natural and easement rights of other land owners and to all customary rights legally subsisting. Explanation I.-Land registered in the name of a person but subsequently abandoned or relinquished and all lands held by right of escheat, purchase, resumption, reversion or acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act for the time being in force as Government lands within the meaning of this subsection. Explanation II.-In this sub-section the expression 'high water mark' means the highest point reached by the ordinary spring tide at any season of the year.” As per clause (2) of Section 2, in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) 'assignment' includes a transfer of land by way of lease and a grant of licence for the use of land; (b) 'assignee' includes his heirs; (c) 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under this Act. 9. Section 3 of the Act deals with assignment of Government land. 9. Section 3 of the Act deals with assignment of Government land. As per sub-section (1) of Section 3, Government land may be as signed by the Government or by any prescribed authority either absolutely or subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (2), no Government land assignable for public purpose may be assigned under sub-section (1) without consulting the local authority as defined in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or the Kerala Municipality Act, 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. As per Explanation to Section 3, any restriction as to alienation, whether voluntary or otherwise, of the rights of the assignee, shall, be a restriction within the meaning of this section. 10. Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (for brevity, 'the Rules') made by the State in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 and in supersession of the Rules of assignment of Government lands issued under notifications I and II G.O.(Press)No.1029/Rev. Dated 18.10.1958, published in the Kerala Gazette Extra Ordinary No.107. Clause (c) of Rule 2 define 'assignment' to mean transfer of land by way of registry and includes a lease and a grant of licence for the use of the land. Clause (cc) of Rule 2 define 'encroachment not considered objectionable' to mean encroachment on Government land, which is available for assignment, by a person or a family eligible to get land, on registry under these rules. Clause (cd) of Rule 2 define 'beneficial enjoyment' to mean the enjoyment of land for purposes like providing approach road to the assignee's registered holding and protection of his watercourse, standing crops and buildings. Clause (d) of Rule 2 define 'family' to include a person, his wife or her husband, their children living with or dependent on them and also the parents who are solely dependent on such person. As per clause (e) of Rule 2, 'Government lands' shall, for purposes of these rules, consist of lands belonging to Government and available for assignment as per lists prepared by the Revenue Department and approved by the competent authority under these rules and such other lands as may be set apart for purposes of these rules. 11. As per clause (e) of Rule 2, 'Government lands' shall, for purposes of these rules, consist of lands belonging to Government and available for assignment as per lists prepared by the Revenue Department and approved by the competent authority under these rules and such other lands as may be set apart for purposes of these rules. 11. As per Rule 3 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, assignment of land under these rules shall be without auction. As per Rule 4, which deals with purposes for which land ay be assigned, Government lands may be assigned on registry for purposes of personal cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjourning registered holdings. Rule 5 deals with maximum limit to be assigned for cultivation. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, 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, one acre of land whether wet or dry, in the plains and one acre of wet land or three acres of dry land in hilly tracts; (b) in the case of lands held on lease whether current or time expired or by way of encroachment not considered objectionable, (i) where there are no valuable improvements effected on the land by the occupant, one acre of land, whether wet or dry, in the plains and one acre of wet land or three acres of dry land in hilly tracts; (ii) where there are valuable improvements effected on the land by the occupant two acres of land wet or dry in the plains and two acres, of wet land or four acres of dry land in hilly tracts. As per Note to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, in the case of occupied lands and lands held on lease, whether current or time expired or by way of encroachment not considered objectionable, where the occupant has not effected valuable improvements on the lands, one acre of wet land in the plains shall be deemed to be equivalent to one acre of dry land, and one acre of wet land in the hilly tracts shall be deemed to be equivalent to three acres of dry land and in the cases of lands held on lease whether current or time expired or by way of encroachments not considered objectionable where the occupant has effected valuable improvements on the, lands, one acre of wet land in the plains shall be deemed to be equivalent to one acre of dry land and one acre of wet land in the hilly tracts shall be deemed to be equivalent to two acres of dry land. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, 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. 12. As per clause (i) of Explanation to Rule 5, for the purposes of this rule, the Taluks and Villages enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) shall be treated as hilly tracts. As per clause (ii) of Explanation, 'valuable improvements' shall mean improvements by cultivation of tea, coffee, rubber, cardamom, arecanut, pepper or coconut or by way of construction of contour bunds or kayal bunds or by way of construction of buildings. As per clause (iii) of Explanation, 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. 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. 13. Rule 7 of the Rules deals with priority to be observed in assignment. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, where any person is in occupation of Government lands under lease, whether current or time expired, or by way of encroachment not considered objectionable such land if such occupation is before the 1st day of August, 1971 shall be assigned to him on registry. As per the first proviso to sub-rule (1), the total extent of land, if any, owned or held by him in proprietary right or with security of tenure is less than the limits laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 or the annual family income from sources other than the Government land held by him is below Rs.1,00,000/-. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, after its substitution vide G.O.(P) No.60/2017/RD dated 17.08.2017, published as SRO No.621/2017 in Kerala Gazette Ext. No. 2199 dated 10.10.2017, provides that the total extent of land, if any, owned or held by him in proprietary right or with security of tenure is less than the limits laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5. As per the second proviso to sub-rule (1), in the case of any land set apart for assignment on registry to the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and subsequently encroached upon by those persons who are landless and eligible for assignment of land under these Rules, such land may be assigned to such encroachers, only after setting apart equal extent of other suitable unoccupied area for the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, in the case of unoccupied lands, the following order of preference shall be observed in granting registry:- “(i) First Preference.-for persons who do not own or hold any land either in proprietary right or with security of tenure and whose annual family income does not exceed Rs.75000/-: Provided that in assigning lands under this clause ten per cent of the area shall be assigned to Ex-servicemen and not less than twenty five per cent of the area shall be assigned to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes subject to availability of applicants. Explanation:-For the purposes of this clause, a Kudikidappukaran or the holder of a Kudiyiruppu shall be deemed to be a person who does not own or hold any land; (ii) Second preference.-for persons who do not own or hold any land either in proprietary right or with security of tenure who are disabled while in active military service or who are dependents of those who are killed or disabled while in active military service; (iii) Third Preference.-for small holders who have not been able to resume their lands due to expiry of the time for applying for resumption and whose annual family income does not exceed Rs.1,00,000/-. Explanation:-For the purposes of this clause, "small holder" means a small holder as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964); (iv) Fourth Preference.-for serving military personnel with an approved service of not less than three years and who are decorated for gallantry or their dependents who do not own or hold any land either in proprietary right or with security of tenure; Provided that in the absence of applications from such military personnels as aforesaid, the applications of other serving Military personnel with an approved service of not less than 10 years, and who do not own or hold any land either in propriety right or with security of tenure shall be considered. (v) Fifth Preference.-for persons whose annual family income does not exceed Rs.1,00,000/- and the total extent of the lands owned or held by them either in proprietary right or with security of tenure is less than the extent prescribed in these rules.” 14. (v) Fifth Preference.-for persons whose annual family income does not exceed Rs.1,00,000/- and the total extent of the lands owned or held by them either in proprietary right or with security of tenure is less than the extent prescribed in these rules.” 14. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, no registry shall be granted to any family in occupation of Government land either under a lease, current or time expired or by way of encroachment, unless it surrenders to Government, without claiming any compensation, the land in excess of the extent proposed to be registered in its favour. If there is excess land, in its possession and if is not willing to surrender the excess land eviction will be resorted to. 15. In Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and others [ 2007 (3) KHC 365 ] a Division Bench of this Court held that, Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules provides for the maximum extent of land that could be assigned on registry for purposes of personal cultivation, house sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. As per clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, 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. Clause (b) of Rule 5 was substituted by the amendment which came into force on 03.03.2005. Prior to amendment, clause (b) provided for assignment of larger extents, namely, not more than one acre in the plains and not more than one acre of wet land or three acres of dry land in hilly tracts, if there are no improvements in the land, and where there are improvements effected on the land by the occupant, not more than two acres in the plains and not more than two acres of wet land or four acres of dry land in hilly tracts. It is stated by the petitioner that the land in question is not in hilly tracts. It is stated by the petitioner that the land in question is not in hilly tracts. Therefore, the maximum extent that could be assigned, before the amendment of the Rules in 2005, is one acre or two acres, depending on the question whether the petitioner has effected valuable improvements in the land. The amended Rules would apply to any assignment after the amendment, irrespective of the date of application and therefore, the maximum extent that could be assigned to the petitioner, if he is entitled to get assignment, is not more than fifty cents of land. 16. In Varkey Abraham the Division Bench held that, 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 extents 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-servicemen, persons disabled in active military service, persons who are dependants 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 also 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. 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 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 recognised or protected under the Act and Rules. 17. In Abdul Rahim C.A. v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others [ 2013 (3) KHC 790 ] a Division Bench of this Court held that, Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules prescribes the maximum limit of land to be assigned for cultivation. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, 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. As per clause (iii) of Explanation to Rule 5, 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. 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. Rule 5 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 Sy.No. 533/8 and 42 ares in Sy.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. 18. In the instant case, as already noticed hereinbefore, the family members of late Sainaba are holding around 2.5 Acres of land in their ownership, in different villages, and paying land tax to the Government. When the provisions under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules are intended to protect landless people, by assigning them Government lands for cultivation and other purposes, the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Sainaba, who are holding 2.5 Acres of land as their registered holding, are not entitled for assignment of any Government Puramboke land. 19. 19. As can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, 2 Acres of Government Puramboke land in Sy.No.59/14 of Mangalam Village was originally leased out to late Sainaba, for agricultural purpose, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. As per the said sub-rule, orders granting lease or licence for agricultural purposes shall be issued in the form in Appendix VI to the Rules. The lease or licence shall also be subject to the terms and conditions specified in the order of grant. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 15, lease or licence granted under these Rules shall be heritable, but not alienable. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 15, it shall be competent for the authority, who granted the lease or licence, to terminate the same, after giving 60 days notice, in writing, to the assignee, if the land or portion thereof is required for Government or public purposes. The grant shall also be liable to termination, after giving reasonable notice, not exceeding 15 days, if the assignee violates any of the conditions of the grant. 20. It is not in dispute that after the death of Sainaba, her legal heirs including the petitioner had renewed the lease upto 2013. Thereafter, the lease was not renewed. In the year 2014, the said land was proposed for a Government project, namely, 'Zero Landless Kerala', for the purpose of distributing land to landless persons. For that purpose, the said land was taken into possession by the 4th respondent Village Officer, as directed by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, after terminating the permissive possession of the lease holder. 21. The document marked as Ext.R3(a) along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent is a copy of the settlement register pertaining to the property in question, as per which the said land is included in revenue records as 'Puzha Puramboke'. The document marked as Ext.R3(b) is a mahazer prepared by the 4th respondent Village Officer, on 14.06.2011, as per which the property in question is on the banks of Tirur-Ponnani Puzha and lying as marshy land, without any improvements. 22. The learned Government Pleader would point out that no assignment of 'puzha puramboke' is legally permissible, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittoor District [ 2019 (4) SCC 500 ]. 23. 22. The learned Government Pleader would point out that no assignment of 'puzha puramboke' is legally permissible, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittoor District [ 2019 (4) SCC 500 ]. 23. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah, it was noticed that, the Apex Court has time and again emphasised the need to retain and restore water bodies and held that water bodies are inalienable. Land comprised in water bodies cannot be alienated to any person even if it is dry. In the said decision, reference was also made to its earlier judgments in M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of India [ (1997) 3 SCC 715 ]; Susetha v. State of Tamil Nadu [ (2006) 6 SCC 543 ] and Intellectuals Forum v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2006) 3 SCC 549 ]. 24. When the land in question having an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.59/14 of Mangalam Village is puzha puramboke, it cannot be assigned to the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Sainaba, in view of the law laid down by the Apex court in the decisions referred to supra. 25. In the above circumstances, the challenge made in this writ petition against Ext.P22 order dated 09.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent District Collector fails and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.