JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. This writ appeal arises from judgment dated 14.11.2016 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.32145 of 2016. The above case was disposed of with a connected matter. 2. The issue, that was considered by the learned Single Judge is whether the land assigned under the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 can be used for any other purpose other than the purpose, for which the land has been assigned. The matter came up before the learned Single Judge when a stop memo was issued by the revenue authority to prohibit construction of a commercial building in the land without obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the revenue authority, in the light of an interim order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1801 of 2010 on 21.01.2010. The learned Single Judge has gone into the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that the construction cannot be undertaken deviating from the purpose for assignment and the Government should initiate proceedings for cancellation of assignment and vest the land back in the Government or assign the land to others for the purpose of cultivation. 3. Dr. Mathew Kuzhalanadan, learned counsel for the appellant, referring to various provisions under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules, argued that when the land is vested absolutely without there being any prohibition for using the land for any other purpose, the learned Single Judge erred in finding that the land cannot be used in diversion of the purpose, for which the land was assigned. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge heard the matter in a challenge against a stop memo issued by the revenue authorities and without there being any proceedings related to cancellation of patta, the learned Single Judge could not have decided the matter as like a primary authority to go into the question relating to violation of patta conditions. According to the learned counsel, that question did not arise in the matter and at the best, the learned Single Judge could have only directed the appellant to move the revenue authorities to lift the attachment giving opportunity to defend his case in appropriate manner. Having deprived the appellant of an opportunity before the competent and primary authority, the Court, in a judicial review, addressed as a primary authority and found against the appellant. Having deprived the appellant of an opportunity before the competent and primary authority, the Court, in a judicial review, addressed as a primary authority and found against the appellant. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ignored a binding judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Autumn Wood Resorts (Cloud 9) v. State of Kerala [ 2014 (3) KLT 526 ], wherein this Court, in absolute terms, held that there was no prohibition of undertaking construction in a patta land. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in following a binding precedent on the point of law involved. It is further submitted that the construction has been put up in the land after obtaining necessary permission from all government agencies like the Town Planner, local authorities etc., expending more than Rs.16 crores and that cannot be ignored in the process to deprive the appellant of enjoying the land held by him legally based on a valid patta issued to his predecessor-in-interest. It is pointed out that there is also positive recommendation for issuance of NOC in favour of the appellant as he is enjoying the property in accordance with law. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the issue is covered as against the appellant in the light of a latest judgment of this Court in Raphy John & Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner & Others [2022 KHC 3494], wherein this Court categorically held that the land assigned for specific purpose cannot be diverted for using for other purposes. It is further submitted that some of the aggrieved persons approached the apex court and later, they withdrew the SLP with liberty to file a review and that, the review (RP No.784 of 2023) also has been subsequently dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2023. 5. Should we re-examine the matter again is a question foremost arises before us by doubting the Bench of coordinate strength. To address that issue, we again have to refer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Mathew Kuzhalanadan, by referring to Section 3 of the Land Assignment Act, which reads thus; 3. Assignment of Government land.- (1) 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. Mathew Kuzhalanadan, by referring to Section 3 of the Land Assignment Act, which reads thus; 3. Assignment of Government land.- (1) 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. (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 (13 of 1994) or the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 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. 6. According to the learned counsel, the Government has necessary power to assign any land absolutely or subject to such restrictions, limitations, conditions etc., as prescribed. Therefore, the argument is that when the Government assigned the land absolutely without placing any restriction as to the nature of use, such land can be used for any lawful purpose. It is submitted that in patta conditions, absolutely there was no embargo or restriction in undertaking any construction or using the land for any purpose. The learned counsel, referring to Rule 3 of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands Prior to 1-1-1997) Special Rules, 1993 (for short, “the Special Rules”), submitted that when there is no specification of purpose in the assignment, like manner referred to in Rule 3 of the Special Rules, there is no embargo for the land holder of such patta land to use the land for any other purpose. His further argument is referring to Rule 3 of the Special Rules for the Assignment of Government Land for Rubber Cultivation, 1960 (for short, “the Rubber Cultivation Rules”). It is also submitted that the rules prescribe restrictions for user of land and this would clearly indicate that when a purpose or restriction is not mentioned in the patta, after issuance of patta, no such restriction can be imposed for using the land for any other purpose. The learned counsel further submits that the Special Rules as well as the Rubber Cultivation Rules specifically prohibit the holder of the land for using land for any other purpose. The learned counsel further submits that the Special Rules as well as the Rubber Cultivation Rules specifically prohibit the holder of the land for using land for any other purpose. Therefore, it is argued that in the absence of such similar rule in the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, there could not have any restriction in regard to use of the land for any other purpose. 7. As we mentioned earlier, our duty in this case is whether to doubt the dictum laid down by a Coordinate Bench in Raphy John (supra). In Raphy John (supra), the Coordinate Bench considered all aspects related to this matter and approved the dictum laid down in the matter (impugned judgment of learned Single Judge). 8. What is the purpose of the rules being framed under the Land Assignment Act, 1964? If this is found out, the question arisen in this context can be answered easily. The Government, no doubt, has necessary power to assign or alienate the land absolutely de hors the rules as it is, subject to any restriction placed under constitutional parameters eschewing arbitrariness. The very idea of bringing statutory rules framed by virtue of Section 7 of the Land Assignment Act is to ensure that the land is assigned or alienated in a prescribed manner so as to prevent abuse of power. It is by virtue of Section 7 of the Land Assignment Act, the Government issued rules for assignment of government land as it required to carry out the objectives of the Land Assignment Act. In this context, the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 is relevant in the sense, the patta issued in this case is admittedly in accordance with the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules states that the land may be assigned for a specific purpose referred to therein. Rule 7 also refers to the priority to be observed in assignment of land. That means, the Government cannot pick and choose an individual for assignment of land other than for assignment of land for enjoyment of adjoining registered holding. The Government will have to follow the procedures referred to therein. The very nature of Rule 4 of the Land Assignment Rules itself encompasses the implied restriction for assigning the land on the Government except for the purpose mentioned in Rule 4 of the Land Assignment Rules. The Government will have to follow the procedures referred to therein. The very nature of Rule 4 of the Land Assignment Rules itself encompasses the implied restriction for assigning the land on the Government except for the purpose mentioned in Rule 4 of the Land Assignment Rules. If the land is assigned under the Land Assignment Rules, 1964, it can only be in accordance with Rule 4 of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964. That takes in itself that it should be for a specific purpose and not otherwise. As mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the power of the Government to assign any land absolutely de hors land cannot be questioned inasmuch as that any responsible Government can assign any land only for justifiable reason subject to tests of constitutional parameters, not beyond. But, when a land is assigned specifically invoking the Land Assignment Rules, the holder of the land impliedly knows the purpose, for which the land has been assigned. A trust has been created between a land holder and the Government insofar as the use of the land is concerned and the land holder cannot pretend ignorance as to the purpose, for which the land has been assigned by contending that no prohibition is mentioned in the patta issued to him. When the purpose is specified for obtaining assignment, the holder of land cannot remain oblivious as to the purpose, when it comes to the use of the land. Yes, the land is a precious resource available to the State. The Government is only acting as a trustee on behalf of the State and while assigning or transferring the land to the holders of the land, the Government with avowed purpose, in a larger public interest, has to ensure that the purpose is achieved by ensuring that the land holder is not using the land for any other purpose other than the purpose, for which the land was assigned. The argument that the power of the Government to assign the land absolute has to be read with reference to the conditions referred in the patta as to use, will not hold as a rule in the sense, the very purpose of assignment itself is for a specific purpose, to bind holder of the land not to use the land other than the purpose, for which the land was assigned. Otherwise, that would betray the legislative intent and statutory rules, under which the land has been alienated or transferred to the holder of the land. We are of the view that even without there being a specific stipulation in the patta conditions, the land cannot be used by the holder of the land for the purpose other than the purpose, for which the land is assigned. 9. Coming back to the point, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that when a stop memo was issued and there are no proceedings initiated by the authorities for cancellation of patta, learned Single Judge could not have gone into the issue regarding violation of patta, it is true that this Court had decided the matter in a wider angle in regard to the nature of use of the land. It is obvious that the decision was rendered for the reason that validity of stop memo could not have been decided without deciding the question in relation to the nature of “permissible use of land”. This judgment also can only be confined to the point whether a prohibitory order issued is valid or not in regard to the use of the land. If there is any intention by the revenue officials to cancel the patta, necessarily, the procedure will have to be followed in accordance with law. Therefore, the challenge in the writ petition and the judgment rendered can only be confined to the issue relating to the nature of use of the land in violation of the purpose, for which it was assigned, and we make it clear that the judgment impugned or our judgment cannot be relied upon for cancelling the patta. The revenue officials, if intend to cancel the patta, have to invoke separate proceedings in accordance with law. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Single Judge ignored a binding judgment in Autumn Wood Resorts (Cloud 9) (supra). We note the facts involved in that case. That was a case, where the Government resumed the land holding that the land was converted for commercial purpose in violation of the Cardamom Rules, 1935. It is also noted that the Cardamom Rules were repealed. In that context, the Division Bench of this Court held that the construction undertaken cannot be said to be in violation of the Cardamom Rules, 1935. It is also noted that the Cardamom Rules were repealed. In that context, the Division Bench of this Court held that the construction undertaken cannot be said to be in violation of the Cardamom Rules, 1935. The ratio involved in that case is different from the case in hand. Therefore, we are of the view that, that judgment has no binding force in this matter and the learned Single Judge has rightly ignored the same. We do not find any reason to doubt the judgment in Raphy John (supra) as we are also bound by the dictum in that case. However, we have been told at the Bar that the Government intends to regularize the construction undertaken in deviation of the assignment purpose. If that be so, the appellant should also be given such benefit if such a legislation is brought in. No action shall be taken without further notice to the appellant. If the State brings in legislation regularizing such construction, then, the Revenue Department shall consider the request of the appellant to permit to use the present construction on terms and conditions, if any, till rules are framed. The writ appeal is disposed of, accordingly.