ORDER : 1. I have heard Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.16026 of 2023, Mr.A.C.Asaithmabi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (MD) No.19866 of 2023 and Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader, for the respondents in both the writ petitions. I have also gone through the records including the impugned order passed by the first respondent. 2. W.P.(MD)No.16026 of 2023 has been filed seeking a relief of writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to grant patta to the petitioner, for the western portion of 4 Acres 44 ½ Cents in re-survey No. 244, corresponding to old survey No.3498, Palur Village, out of 8.89 Acres. 3. W.P.(MD)No.19866 of 2023 has been filed seeking a relief of writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the properties in old survey No.3498, new survey No.244, Palur Village, without due process of law. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P(MD)No. 16026 of 2023, Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, would submit that the lands in re-survey No.244, corresponding to old survey No.3498, measuring 8.89 Acres belonged to the Thiruvancore, Kochin Government of Kerala State. The said lands were given as Kuthagapattam in favour of the petitioner's great grandfather Boothathankutty Nadar. The said Boothathankutty died in the year 1993 and subsequent to his demise, his legal heirs have partitioned the property as two equal halves. The eastern half of 4 Acres 44 ½ cents was allotted to Appavu Nadar and his heirs and the western half of 4 Acres 44 ½ cents was allotted to Neelan Nadar and his heirs. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that Appavu Nadar and his family members had made a false representation as if they are in possession and enjoyment of entire extent of 8.89 Acres and got an assignment of the entire extent in their favour in the year 1987. Aggrieved by the said assignment issued by the Tahsildar in favour of Appavu Nadar and his family members, the heirs of Neelan Nadar preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by proceedings dated 15.12.1997, cancelled the entire assignment. Challenging the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, both the rival claimants preferred revision before the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer, after enquiry enquiry, remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh consideration, by order dated 29.10.1997. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by proceedings dated 15.12.1997, cancelled the entire assignment. Challenging the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, both the rival claimants preferred revision before the District Revenue Officer. The District Revenue Officer, after enquiry enquiry, remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer for fresh consideration, by order dated 29.10.1997. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a suit was filed by the petitioner, in which, the District Collector was arrayed as 11 th defendant and the heirs of Neelan Nadar was also arrayed as defendant in O.S.No.894 of 1998 and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court on 10.08.2002 and therefore, in the light of the decree, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, would submit that there can be no impediment for the authorities to grand patta in respect of 4 Acres 44 ½ cents being the western portion comprised in re-survey No.244, corresponding to old survey No.3498. 6. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.M.Lingadurai, would submit that the suit in O.S.No.894 of 1998 only regularized the possessory right of the petitioner and the right of the State can never be taken away. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the lands were never occupied or cultivated as claimed by the writ petition and even the claim of the lease in favour of Boothathankutty Nadar by the erstwhile Tiruvancode Samasthanam. He would further submit that the lands forms part of hillock and the said area receives adequate rain fall not only during monsoon period but also during summer rains and the entire subject lands are full of trees and the claim of the petitioner that they are cultivating as absolutely false and untenable. He would further submit that the decree in O.S.No.894 of 1996 will not come in the way of State taking steps to repossess the lands and at best, the possession of the petitioner can only be treated as encroachment. It is further contended that the petitioner and family members are carrying out quarrying activities contrary to assignment conditions and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 8. It is further contended that the petitioner and family members are carrying out quarrying activities contrary to assignment conditions and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 8. Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.19866 of 2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in and by the proceedings of the Collector, Kanyakumari, even as early as in the year 1959, it was decided that the lands were not acquired for public purpose and steps can be taken to lease out portions, according to the Rules, considering long occupation of the encroachers. He would therefore submit that the assignment in favour of the petitioners is valid and the petitioners are in continuos possession and enjoyment of the lands assigned to them and therefore the possession of the petitioners cannot be disturbed by due process of law and therefore he would pray for the petition being allowed. 9. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.M.Lingadurai, would submit that, the lands were assigned only subject to conditions in favour of the first petitioner and though the lands were given for cultivation, the petitioners have exploited below the surface contrary to conditions and only in such circumstances, the land assignment orders were cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer by proceedings dated 19.02.1997. He would further submit that an appeal preferred by the petitioners before the District Revenue Officer, the District Revenue Officer remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer and pursuant to the said order of remand, the Revenue Divisional Officer is taking steps to take necessary action in law. He would further submit that the petitioner is not entitled to issuance of writ of mandamus as prayed for. 10. Admittedly, the case of the petitioners in both the writ petitions stems from the original pattas in favour of the petitioner's great grandfather, viz. Boothathankutty, who was given lease of total extent of 8.89 Acres. It is seen that the said Boothathankutty had two sons, viz., Appavu Nadar and Neelan Nadar. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.16026 of 2023 is claiming under Appavu Nadar, whereas, the petitioners in W.P. (MD)No.19866 of 2023 are claiming under Neelan Nadar. Insofar as the inter se dispute between the two families, the judgment of the civil Court in O.S.No.894 of 1988 binds the parties. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.16026 of 2023 is claiming under Appavu Nadar, whereas, the petitioners in W.P. (MD)No.19866 of 2023 are claiming under Neelan Nadar. Insofar as the inter se dispute between the two families, the judgment of the civil Court in O.S.No.894 of 1988 binds the parties. Therefore, the respective petitioners can claim right only to 4 Acres 44 ½ cents each with the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.16026 of 2023 being entitled to western portion and the petitioners in WP(MD)No.19866 of 2023 being entitled to eastern portion, measuring 4 Acres 44 ½ cents. The trial Court has also found the petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.16026 of 2023 to be in possession and granted a decree, declaring the petitioners' possessory right in respect of the western half and also restrained the defendants from cutting trees in the said portion. In all other respects, the suit was dismissed. Therefore, the competent civil Court has found the petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.16026 of 2023 to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the western half measuring 4 Acres 44 ½ cents and accordingly granted a decree regularizing the possessory right of the petitioner. 11. Though the learned Special Government Pleader contends that there are conditions for the assignment in favour of the petitioners and there has been a breach of such conditions, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not been able to demonstrate that the assignment was with conditions in the first place in order to enable them to release the issue of violation of such non existing conditions. In fact, the District Collector, Kanyakumari, was impleaded as 11 th defendant in O.S.No.894 of 1998 and the District Collector filed a written statement stating that the patta was issued to the heirs of Appavu Nadar, who were found to be in possession and the plaintiffs in the suit never objected the same. It is further pleads that the District Collector was an unnecessary parties. If at all the arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader is to be accepted, the District Collector ought to have taken a plea that there has been assignment with conditions and that conditions have been violated and that ought to have been the case of the District Collector at the earliest point of time. If at all the arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader is to be accepted, the District Collector ought to have taken a plea that there has been assignment with conditions and that conditions have been violated and that ought to have been the case of the District Collector at the earliest point of time. Therefore, this only fortifies the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the assignment was without any conditions and therefore now it is not open to allege any breach of such non existing conditions. 12. In view of the above, the case of the writ petitioners in both these writ petitions are to be considered favourbly. The petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.16026 of 2023 is entitled to grant of patta in respect of western extent measuring 4 Acres 44 ½ cents, in re-survey No.244 corresponding to old survey No.3498, Palur Village, old Vilavancode Taluk, new Kiliyoor Taluk, Kanaykumari District. Similarly, the petitioners in W.P. (MD)No.19866 of 2023 are entitled to issuance of writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with their possession, except by due process of law. Of course, the petitioners are entitled for such protection only in respect of the eastern half ,viz., 4 Acres 44 ½ cents, in re-survey No.244 corresponding to old survey No.3498, Palur Village, old Vilavancode Taluk, new Kiliyoor Taluk, Kanaykumari District. 13. These Writ Petitions are allowed, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.