JUDGMENT : VIJU ABRAHAM, J. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 3 rd respondent to pass an award in respect of the land in survey No.1/5 of Thanneermukkom North Village, granting the market value for the land along with structural value and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation as the owner in possession of the land in survey No.1/5 of Thanneermukkom North Village and the building therein on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Cherthala Branch, having more than 256 members. The IMA Community Hall is situated on the land in survey No.1/5 of Thanneermukkom North Village, and the same is utilized for various medical camps, medical education programmes, doctors’ meetings, etc. The IMA Cherthala Branch office and the IMA Community Hall were constructed by the petitioner in the year 1983, which is situated by the side of National Highway, NH 66. The land was originally assigned to the IMA by the Government as a heritable land as per the provisions of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1960”) read with KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES , 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1964”) as per Ext.P1 patta dated 02.08.1983 and Ext P2 Government order. Petitioner has remitted the land value, and thereafter, the land was assigned to the petitioner for the construction of the IMA Community Hall. Petitioner contends that after payment of the land value and after the land was assigned to the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2, the same became a private land subject to conditions in Exts.P1 and P2. Petitioner contended that they have not violated any of the conditions in Exts.P1 and P2, and therefore, the land should be considered completely under the ownership and possession of the petitioner. Ext.P3 possession certificate was also issued in respect of the subject property, and the petitioner is paying land tax in Thandaper No.696 of Thanneermukkom North Village. Ext.P4 ownership certificate was also issued by the Cherthala Municipality as proof of the ownership of the building constructed therein. 3. Ext.P3 possession certificate was also issued in respect of the subject property, and the petitioner is paying land tax in Thandaper No.696 of Thanneermukkom North Village. Ext.P4 ownership certificate was also issued by the Cherthala Municipality as proof of the ownership of the building constructed therein. 3. In the year 2018, Ext.P5 notification under Section 3(a) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956, has been issued by the 1 st respondent for acquiring an extent of 3.87 Ares (10 cents) of property in survey No.1/5 of Thanneermukkom North Village for widening the NH 66. In Ext.P5 itself, the land in survey No.1/5 of Thanneermukkom North Village is shown as private property and not as Government land. The petitioner was expecting an award to be passed in their favour. Later, on enquiry, it was found that the 3 rd respondent competent authority, has not passed any award in respect of the land, stating that the land in question is a patta land assigned in favour of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said stand is arbitrary and unjust since, after the land had been assigned as per the Land Assignment Act on remittance of the requisite land value as early as in 1983, the petitioner became the owner in possession of the same. Since the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions in Exts.P1 and P2, the land can only be treated as private land, and the petitioner is entitled to compensation towards the acquisition of the land also. It is in these said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. A statement has been filed by the 3 rd respondent wherein it is contended that even though the above land is assigned land, it is treated as Government land based on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), especially paragraph 3-5-5(v)(a) which mandates that when people are granted patta/ownership rights on the land under any law of the State including abadi/assigned land, compensation would be paid for the structures only on the recommendation of the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA)/State Government and that based on the said guideline, the petitioner is only eligible to get compensation for the structure in the acquired land. It is also contended that the assignment of land is with certain conditions. It is also contended that the assignment of land is with certain conditions. Based on the above contentions, the 3 rd respondent has sought dismissal of the writ petition. Similar contentions were raised by the 1 st respondent in its counter affidavit. 5. In response to the contention of the respondents, the petitioner would submit that the guidelines issued by MoRTH cannot have any binding force superseding the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. Petitioner would further contend that in respect of similarly situated properties which are patta land, awards have been passed granting compensation for the land value also. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced Ext.P10, which is the true copy of the patta issued in respect of SNDP Shaka Yogam Branch 2189, and as per Ext.P11 award, compensation has been awarded in respect of the land also. Based on the same, the petitioner would contend that they alone have been discriminated in the matter of award of compensation towards land acquired. 6. I have heard the rival contentions of the respective counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 7. Admittedly, the subject land is an assigned land and Ext.P1 patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P1 patta would reveal that the land has been assigned on various conditions attached to the same, which admittedly have not been violated by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the patta has been issued after payment of the land value fixed by the authorities. The property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner, and tax was also paid. Ext.P3 certificate would reveal that the property is in the possession of the petitioner, and the building therein is also in the ownership of the petitioner. In Ext.P5 notification under Section 3(a) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 also, the property has been treated as private land. Going by the provisions of the Act 1960 and the Rules 1964, after the land value has been paid and the patta has been issued, the patta itself should be treated as the title of the property, and thereafter, the assignee should be treated as the owner in possession of the said land. Going by the provisions of the Act 1960 and the Rules 1964, after the land value has been paid and the patta has been issued, the patta itself should be treated as the title of the property, and thereafter, the assignee should be treated as the owner in possession of the said land. A perusal of Exts.P10 and P11 would reveal that in a similar case involving patta land, an award has been passed granting compensation in respect of the land also. 8. As per the statement of the 3 rd respondent the compensation for the land has been declined mainly for the reason that the patta has been issued with certain conditions and therefore the petitioner has no absolute right over the land and that the land value cannot be granted in respect of patta land as per the guidelines of MoRTH. 9. To examine the rival contentions, it is profitable to scan through the provisions of the Act 1960 and the Rules 1964 and the guidelines issued by MoRTH. The Act has been promulgated to regulate the assignment of Government lands and as per Section 2(2)(a) “assignment” includes a transfer of land by way of lease and a grant of licence for the use of land and as per Section 2(2)(b) “assignee” includes his heirs. Section 3 deals with the assignment of Government land, and as per Section 3(1), the 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. Rules 1964 has been framed exercising the power conferred by Section 7 of the Act 1960 and as per Rule 2(b) “assignee” means a person to whom land is assigned under these Rules and includes his heirs or successors in interest and as per Rule 2(c) “assignment” means transfer of land by way of registry and includes a lease and a grant of licence for the use of the land. Rule 9 deals with the payment of land value and the issuance of patta. Rule 9 provides that the order granting registry shall be issued in the form in APPENDIX 1 of the Rules for assignment of occupied lands and in the form in APPENDIX 1A to these rules for assignment of unoccupied lands. Rule 9 deals with the payment of land value and the issuance of patta. Rule 9 provides that the order granting registry shall be issued in the form in APPENDIX 1 of the Rules for assignment of occupied lands and in the form in APPENDIX 1A to these rules for assignment of unoccupied lands. A perusal of Ext.P1 patta would reveal that it has been issued as per the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Rules 1964. Rule 9(6A) mandates that notwithstanding the order of registry of any land and the communication of that order to the assignee, the title to that land shall not pass to the assignee until he remits that land value and tree value payable in respect of that land, the arrears of tax, if any due in respect of the land and other charges due from him. Rule 24 mandates that, notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1964, the Government, if they consider it necessary so to do in public interest, assign land dispensing with any of the provisions contained in these Rules and subject to such conditions, if any, as they may impose. A combined reading of the above-quoted provisions makes it explicitly clear that assignment includes a transfer of land by way of registry and that the assignee means a person to whom land is assigned and includes his heir or successor in interest. It is further to be noted that Rules 1964 , especially Rule 9(6A) provides that the title to the land will be passed to the assignee on his remittance of the land value. Admittedly, the land was assigned as per Ext.P1 on registry after payment of the full land value as revealed from Ext.P2 order that the land value of Rs.1,000/- per cent, besides other land acquisition charges, is remitted. It is a settled position of law that title indicates legal recognition of ownership of a property, and title with possession manifests unequivocal ownership. It is a settled position of law that title indicates legal recognition of ownership of a property, and title with possession manifests unequivocal ownership. In view of the fact that Ext.P1 patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner on remitting the full land value, the stipulation in Rule 9(6A) of the Rules 1964 that the title to the land will be passed to the assignee on his remittance of the land value and that the petitioner has possession over the property as evident from Ext.P3 possession certificate, there can be no doubt that the petitioner has valid title over the said land and should be treated as the owner of the land whereby entitling the petitioner for compensation towards the land value also. The stand in the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent that since the property is covered only by a patta which has been issued with conditions and the petitioner has no saleable right over the subject land, also cannot be accepted. The respondents have no case that any of the conditions in Ext.P1 patta have been violated, and any steps have been taken to resume the land for any alleged violation. The only effect of the conditions attached to the patta is that the Government is free to resume the land in case of violation of any of the conditions of assignment, which is admittedly not available in the present case. Yet another aspect to be noted is that Rules 1964 deals with the assignment of land by way of registry and includes a lease and grant of a licence for the use of the land. Rule 13 of the Rules 1964 deals with the lease or licensing of Government land, which is granted on conditions. If the Government intended to limit the right of the petitioner over the subject land, Government would have only granted a licence in favour of the petitioner. Even though Rules 1964 provides for the grant of lease or licence in respect of properties, what has been done as per Exts.P1 and P2 is the assignment of land on the registry and patta has been issued. Only for the reason that the patta has been issued with conditions, it cannot be held that the petitioner has no title over the subject land. 10. Only for the reason that the patta has been issued with conditions, it cannot be held that the petitioner has no title over the subject land. 10. The further contention raised based on the guidelines of MoRTH that in the case of patta land, compensation will be granted only for the structures also cannot be accepted in the light of specific provisions in the Act 1960 and Rules 1964 especially the condition in Rule 9(6A) that title to the land will be passed to the assignee on his remittance of the land value. The relevant provision of the Guidelines relied on by respondents 1 and 3 to decline compensation towards land is Clause 3-5-5(v)(a) of the Guidelines, which reads as follows: “(a) There are instances where people are granted patta/ownership rights on the land under any law of the State including abadi/assigned land. In such cases compensation would be paid for the structures only on the recommendation of the CALA/State Government. The procedure for valuation of such structures will be followed as mentioned in the above paragraphs.” A perusal of the manual of guidelines issued by MoRTH in respect of Land Acquisition for the National Highways reveals that it is only a guideline prepared by the then Secretary to the Department of Road, Transport and Highways, holistically addressing various issues, relating to legal issues or the processes involved at all stages of acquisition and has no statutory backing. No contention has been raised by the respondents to substantiate that the guidelines have been issued on the strength of any statute. It is a settled position of law that a guideline/circular cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions. The Apex Court in Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi , (2009) 7 SCC 205 has held that a mere circular letter that has no force of law will not prevail over the statutory rules. In State of M.P. v. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 150, the Apex Court has observed that executive instructions cannot run contrary to statutory provisions or whittle down their effect. Further, it is pertinent to note that the 3 rd respondent herein, in the case of a patta land, has awarded compensation in respect of the land also as per Ext P11 award. Further, it is pertinent to note that the 3 rd respondent herein, in the case of a patta land, has awarded compensation in respect of the land also as per Ext P11 award. The Apex Court in Syndicate Bank v. Ramachandran Pillai and others , (2011) 15 SCC 398 has considered the value and effect of a guideline and held that guidelines/executive instructions are not statutory in character and are not law, and they do not confer any legal right. Going by Clause 3-5-5(v)(a) of the guidelines, when land is covered by a patta/ownership rights under any law of the State, compensation will be paid only for the structures. The Madras High Court in Vijayakumar B.M. v. District Collector cum Arbitrator, Chengalpet , 2024 KHC OnLine 5126 has considered an almost identical situation and on finding that the land is a patta land, directed to disburse the compensation to the petitioner for the acquired land. The Apex Court in Yerikala Sunkalamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue , 2025 KHC OnLine 6261 was considering a case where a property is covered by a pattadar passbook and the parties were paying tax to the Government and held that what was vested in the appellants with the issuance of a pattadar passbook was a “property” within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Specifically referring to Article 300A, the Court held that dispossessing the appellants therein from the suit land without prior notice or compensation is illegal and violative of their property rights guaranteed under Article 300A, as the property cannot be taken without the sanction of law. While examining the meaning of patta, the Apex Court held that pattadar is essentially a land owner who holds a land deed (patta) directly from the Government and is registered in the land revenue accounts as the holder or occupant of the land, liable to pay land revenue and patta is a type of land deed issued by the Government, indicating ownership or the right to hold land and therefore a person who holds a patta is also responsible for paying land revenue to the Government and their names are registered in the land revenue accounts of the Government as pattadar. It is further held that the land patta holder is a person who has been granted a patta (a legal document) that confers rights over a specific piece of land, typically indicating ownership or entitlement to use the land. Going by the decision in Yerikala Sunkalamma’s case cited supra, Ext.P1 patta should be treated as a valid document indicating ownership of the petitioner, though it is issued with some conditions. In the light of the above, the contention raised by respondents 1 and 3 based on the guidelines which disentitle the grant of compensation for the land which is covered by a patta issued by the State Government is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Given the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to compensation for the land acquired. As per the instructions submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the compensation amount towards structural value has already been disbursed to the petitioner. Therefore, the above writ petition is allowed directing the 3 rd respondent to pass an award in respect of the land in survey No.1/5 of Thaneermukkom North Village acquired from the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P5 notification and to pay the compensation amount due, without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.