JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J . The appellant obtained an assignment under Rule 6 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964. This provision is distinct from Rule 7. Rule 6 contemplates assignments made for the beneficial enjoyment of an adjoining registered holding. “Beneficial enjoyment,” as defined in Rule 2 (cd), includes purposes such as providing approach roads to the assignee’s registered holdings and protecting water courses, standing crops, and buildings. Such assignments are made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, upon payment of the market value by the applicant. Rule 7, on the other hand, rests on welfare considerations, being intended to benefit socially and economically marginalised groups. Two categories of persons are entitled to assignment under this Rule. The first category consists of persons who have encroached upon government land, whose occupation is considered non-objectionable, provided the encroachment occurred prior to 1st August 1971. Even in this category, the applicants must satisfy certain personal qualifications, such as low income or being landless members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. The second category, dealt with in Rule 7(2), relates to persons seeking assignment of unoccupied government land. They, too, must establish personal qualifications, including income ceilings and limited land ownership, as prescribed in the Rule. 2. There is no specific provision under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964, regarding the form of assignment to be made under Rule 6. The same format is followed for both, and they appear to be identical. 3. Under Rule 8, the conditions of assignment on the registry are mentioned. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 8 in this context. We must also note the anomaly of clause 1(A) being repeated twice in Rule 8. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 8 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964, prescribing the conditions of assignment on registry as follows: “8. Conditions of assignment on registry.- (1) Lands, granted on registry shall be heritable and alienable: (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the land assigned on registry as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 shall be heritable and alienable. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), unoccupied lands assigned on registry shall be heritable but not alienable for a period of twelve years from the date of assignment on registry.;” 4. Rule 8(1A), in its first part, is connected to Rule 7(1), which concerns occupied land prior to 1971. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), unoccupied lands assigned on registry shall be heritable but not alienable for a period of twelve years from the date of assignment on registry.;” 4. Rule 8(1A), in its first part, is connected to Rule 7(1), which concerns occupied land prior to 1971. The subsequent reference to Rule 8(1A) within Rule 8, however, corresponds to Rule 7(2), which deals with the assignment of unoccupied land. The restrictions imposed under Rule 8(1A) are intended to prevent the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable, while also ensuring the purpose of such assignments, namely, facilitating the social and economic advancement of the marginalised. In contrast, Rule 6 is not status-based, and even the wealthy and affluent are eligible for assignments under it subject to the proximity of the government land to the adjoining land holding. The rule-making authority never intended to impose restrictions upon such categories. 5. Anyway, a reading of Rule 8 makes it evident that the restriction against alienation is intended to apply only to assignments made under Rule 7, and not to those under Rule 6. This is exactly the reason why, while issuing an order of assignment on the registry under Rule 8, there was no prescription against alienation in this case. However, while issuing a patta, a restriction was introduced, declaring the land to be inalienable for twelve years. This restriction is under challenge in the present proceedings. At the outset, it may be stated that a patta cannot be issued in contravention of the order of assignment on the registry. The order of granting registry issued under Rule 9 must signify all the conditions of assignment. 6. Anyway, taking note of the purport of Rule 8, we are of the view that such an embargo against alienation cannot be imposed in a patta for any assignment made under Rule 6, as the purpose of assigning land under Rule 6 is entirely distinct and different from the purpose of assigning land under Rule 7. The government, after having collected market value, cannot impose against alienation. 7. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Abhilash Lal [ (2020) 13 SCC 234 ] and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Raphy John and Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner and Others [2022 KHC 3494] . 7. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Abhilash Lal [ (2020) 13 SCC 234 ] and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Raphy John and Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner and Others [2022 KHC 3494] . We find that these judgments have no relevance in this case. 8. Accordingly, we direct that the condition against alienation imposed in the patta shall be deleted. The needful shall be done within one month. The Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly.