JUDGMENT : The petitioner states that his father was the owner of 30 cents of property in Block No.109, Re Survey No.6 of Aryanadu South Village. The petitioner's father had assigned 7.50 Ares of the said property to the petitioner and the remaining 3.43 Ares to the petitioner's brother Sreekumar. The mutation of the said properties has been effected and they are paying tax and are in possession of the said properties. Apart from the said land (the registered holding), the petitioner's father was also in possession of 4.55 Ares of land in Block No.110 in Sy. No.122/10 of the said Village and the said land is lying adjacent to the registered holdings of the petitioner and his brother and the only access to the registered holdings of the petitioner and his brother is through this property. It is stated that the petitioner's father had obtained Kuthakappattom of the aforesaid 4.55 Ares of land in 1965 as per K.P. 28/65 for the beneficial enjoyment of the registered holding lying adjacent and the petitioner's father was paying the lease rent for this property without default. 2. While so, it is stated that the petitioner's father passed away on 9.12.2014 and during this period, the third respondent Tahsildar issued Ext.P8 notice dated 15.11.2014 addressed to the petitioner's father demanding an amount of Rs.83,145/-towards arrears of lease rent and informing that if the amount is not remitted the same would be recovered by initiating revenue recovery proceedings and the lease would be cancelled. 3. According to the petitioner, while the petitioner's father was alive, he had made an application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (for brevity, 'the Rules') for assignment of the aforesaid 4.55 Ares of land in Block No.110 in Sy.No.122/10 of Aryanadu South Village for the beneficial use of the registered holding referred to above. However, the said application for assignment of land was rejected by the District Collector as per order No. C7/25078/11/K.Dis dated 28.11.2011 and the same was communicated to the petitioner's father by Ext.P11 letter of the Tahsildar. In Ext.P11, it is stated that the application submitted by the petitioner's parents for assignment of 4.55 Ares of land for the beneficial enjoyment of the registered holding was under consideration, but, had to be rejected by the District Collector in the light of G.O.(MS) 280/2011/RD dated 27.07.2011 (Ext. In Ext.P11, it is stated that the application submitted by the petitioner's parents for assignment of 4.55 Ares of land for the beneficial enjoyment of the registered holding was under consideration, but, had to be rejected by the District Collector in the light of G.O.(MS) 280/2011/RD dated 27.07.2011 (Ext. P12) which provides that assignment of land on patta (registry) will be only to landless. The petitioner states that he came to know about the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner's father under Rule 6(2) of the Rules after the death of his father. It is challenging Ext.P11 communication of the Tahsildar, intimating the rejection of the application of the petitioner's parents made under Rule 6(2) by the District Collector, on the basis of Ext. P12 Government Order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. According to the petitioner, the application under Rule 6(2) of the Rules cannot be rejected on the basis of Ext.P12 Government Order, since, the application under Rule 6(2) is filed for the assignment of government land for the beneficial enjoyment of the adjoining registered holding. Therefore, only a person who is having a registered holding can apply for assignment of government land under Rule 6(2) for the beneficial enjoyment of that registered holding and the rejection of the application on the ground that the petitioner is not landless is not sustainable. There is no challenge to Ext. P12 Government Order. The case of the petitioner is that Ext. P12 Government Order is not applicable in cases of assignment of land for beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holding under Rule 6(2) of the Rules. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent, the Tahsildar, wherein it is stated that the 4.55 Ares of land in Block No.110 in Sy. No.122/10 of Aryanadu South Village was granted as lease to petitioner's father under the Kuthakappattom Rules, 1947 in 1965 as per K.P. 28/65 subject to conditions and the lease was later renewed, but the lease rent fell in arrears. The application of the petitioner's parents for assignment of land was rejected by the District Collector based on Ext. P12 Government Order. It is stated that, only those who are landless are eligible for assignment of patta. It is further stated that even though the petitioner is not eligible for patta, he can continue the existing lease by remitting the arrears of lease rent. P12 Government Order. It is stated that, only those who are landless are eligible for assignment of patta. It is further stated that even though the petitioner is not eligible for patta, he can continue the existing lease by remitting the arrears of lease rent. Since the petitioner can continue possession of the Government land by paying lease to Government, the petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved by Ext. P12 Government Order. It is also stated that the petitioner has the right of appeal to the Land Revenue Commissioner and the same was not utilized by him. 6. Heard Sri. Harish Gopinath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 7. This writ petition has been pending from 2015 and the third respondent has filed counter affidavit and has joined issue in the writ petition. Therefore, at this distance of time, and in the nature of the direction I propose to issue, this Court is not relegating the petitioner to avail the right to appeal under the statute. 8. The Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) is enacted to regulate the assignment of Government lands. Section 3 of the Act provides that 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. Section 4 provides that, when any Government land is proposed to be assigned by the prescribed authority, the Tahsildar of the Taluk concerned or any officer empowered in that behalf shall notify that such land will be assigned. The Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 of the Act has made the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Rule 2 (c) defines '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. Rule 2(CD) defines “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. Rule 4 deals with the purposes for which land may be assigned and provides that the Government lands may be assigned on registry for purposes of personal cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjourning registered holdings. 9. Rule 4 deals with the purposes for which land may be assigned and provides that the Government lands may be assigned on registry for purposes of personal cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjourning registered holdings. 9. Rule 6 (1) and (2) of the Rules deals with assignment of Government land for beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holding and the extent of Government land that may be assigned and it 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]. (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. (3) An assignment under sub-rule (2) shall be subject to the payment of market value of the land at the time of assignment and survey and demarcation charges at the rates specified in sub-rule (4) of rule 10 excluding the value of improvements, if any, made by the occupants on the land." According to the petitioner, the Government land having an extent of 4.55 Ares lying adjacent to his registered holding is the only access to the said registered holding and therefore, assignment of the said Government land is indispensably required for the beneficial enjoyment of his adjoining registered holding. The application under Rule 6(2) of the Rules has been rejected citing Ext.P12 Government Order for the reason that the applicant is not landless. The application under Rule 6(2) of the Rules has been rejected citing Ext.P12 Government Order for the reason that the applicant is not landless. By Ext.P12, as it reads, the Government, 'in order to ensure that there is a uniform, transparent and rational policy for the use and assignment of public lands to curb the tendency to get lands assigned to the ineligible and to ensure that public lands are assigned for public use', issued certain guidelines and the first clause therein provides that, “Land assignment on patta (registry) will be only to the landless and for self-housing”. A perusal of the said Government Order would show that it deals with assignment of Government lands for personal housing, institutional and commercial purposes. It does not deal with assignment of Government lands for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holding. An assignment of the government land under Rule 6(2) of the Rules is granted when the government land is indispensably required for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holding. Therefore, a person who is having a registered holding and who requires the adjoining government land for the beneficial enjoyment of his registered holding can be granted assignment of government land under Rule 6(2), subject to satisfying the other conditions required for assignment. It would be incongruous to say that the assignment of land on patta (registry) for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining 'registered holding' will be only to 'landless'. That would set at naught Rule 6(2) which provides for assignment of government land for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holding. Obviously, that is not intended in Ext. P12 Government Order, as it does not deal with assignment of Government lands for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holding. Therefore, the rejection of the application under Rule 6(2) of the Rules by the District Collector as per order No. C7/25078/11/K.Dis dated 28.11.2011 relying on Ext.P12 Government order cannot be sustained. Ext.P11 is, therefore, set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application under Rule 6(2) afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner and any other persons whom the second respondent deems appropriate. Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No order as to costs.