JUDGMENT : since common issues are involved in all these cases, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C) No.4670 of 2022 will be treated as the leading case. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P10 and for a consequential direction to implement Ext.P4. Petitioner is having an extent of 8.10 Ares of property in Block No.12 in Survey No.296 of Peringanad Village in Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta. The property of the petitioner was acquired by the 1 st respondent as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 during 1970-1980 for the purpose of constructing an irrigation canal under the Kallada Irrigation Project (KIP). A total extent of 17 hectares of property was acquired from 29 different individuals including the petitioner herein for the said project. The acquired property is a long narrow strip of land with an average width of 15 metres and the same virtually divides petitioner’s larger extent of property through its middle. The original plan for constructing irrigation canal was abandoned by respondents 1 to 3 several years ago and for the last several years the said respondents are not taking any steps for utilizing this strip of land for intended purpose of acquisition or for any other purposes. Accordingly the property remained in the defacto possession of the petitioner and he is utilising this property for agricultural purposes and for beneficial enjoyment of the larger extent of property. During 2008-2010 respondents 1 and 4 distributed a portion of the similarly acquired properties from eight different land owners to certain landless persons under “Mission Mode Project (MMP) towards the programme of making Kerala a Zero Landless (Citizens) State”. However the property of the petitioner was not distributed and is even now remaining in defacto possession of the petitioner. Petitioner would contend that such distribution of land acquired for construction of a canal will virtually divide the larger extent of land which is being used for residential/agricultural purposes and if such strip of land is given for the purpose of house construction, even access to the remaining portion of the land will be denied. It is further contended that the acquired strip of land is not fit for constructing houses as there is no sufficient space for constructing toilets and wells. It is further contended that the acquired strip of land is not fit for constructing houses as there is no sufficient space for constructing toilets and wells. In the said circumstance petitioner approached respondents 1 to 4 with a request to take necessary steps for assigning the property which is absolutely necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the remaining property. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the property was initially acquired for canal in the frontage portion of the property owned by the petitioner and if the land is taken away and distributed to landless persons, there will be no road access and the property of the petitioner would become landlocked and the lack of road frontage/access would cause severe loss and depreciation to the remaining property of the petitioner. Based on the request submitted by the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 obtained reports from respondents 4 and 5 and after considering various aspects including the uneven lie and unsuitability of land for other purposes and the hardships that would be caused to the petitioner, the 1 st respondent agreed to consider the request for assignment submitted by the petitioner. The officers of the 1 st respondent conducted elaborate enquiry in that regard and Ext.P1 report was submitted by the Village Officer, Peringanadu before the Tahsildar, Adoor. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that the aspects pertaining to the absolute necessity of assignment of acquired land to the petitioner for the purposes of cultivation, house site and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holding, etc. was elaborately considered. The nuisance and injury that may be caused to the petitioner in the event of distribution of land to others was also considered at length in Ext.P1. After such thorough enquiry and deliberation at different levels, it was agreed that the acquired property will be allotted back to the petitioner on the specific condition that property having five times larger extent than the property sought to be assigned must be made available/relinquished for the public purpose of distribution to the landless persons. Respondents 1 and 2 had also fixed specifications for the land that is to be relinquished, which includes access to road, availability of electricity, proximity to Government officers, shops, hospitals, etc. In the said circumstances petitioner identified different such properties, including those in the Palakkad District. Respondents 1 and 2 had also fixed specifications for the land that is to be relinquished, which includes access to road, availability of electricity, proximity to Government officers, shops, hospitals, etc. In the said circumstances petitioner identified different such properties, including those in the Palakkad District. Later the 5 th respondent got the said lands verified through the Village Officer, Sholayar and zeroed down to most suitable land as evident from Ext.P2 report of the Village Officer. After finding that the land identified by the petitioner situated in survey Nos.1781 and 1782 of Sholayar Vilalge for relinquishment is suitable for the purpose of constructing houses/distributing to landless persons, the 5 th respondent submitted Ext.P3 report and sketch before the 1 st respondent to that effect. It is submitted that as per Ext.P2 the land identified in Sholayar has convenient road access and is suitable in all aspects for housing scheme. Thereafter the 1 st respondent took a policy decision to return/assign the property to the petitioner on the specific condition that the petitioner should relinquish property having five times more area than the property sought to be assigned back. The 1 st respondent further authorised the 4 th respondent to assign the property mentioned above to the petitioner under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 as per Ext.P4 Government Order dated 18.01.2016. A perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal that it made a balance between the interest of the petitioner and State in as much as the petitioner’s purpose of beneficial enjoyment of adjoining land and policy of the State to provide land for distribution of landless persons was satisfied. In furtherance of Ext.P4 Government Order petitioner purchased 40.49 Ares of land in Survey No.1781 of Sholayar Village as per Ext.P5 document and mutated the same in the name of the petitioner and land tax was also paid. Later on petitioner submitted necessary application in prescribed form (Form A) under Rule 3 of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Rules, 1958 before the 6 th respondent. It is also stated that petitioner and others submitted all necessary documents before the Office of Sub Collector, Ottappalam on 12.04.2016. In the meanwhile Tahsildar, Adoor issued Ext.P6 communication dated 25.02.2016 directing the petitioner to produce all necessary documents evidencing relinquishment of land for taking further action for assignment of land in terms of Ext.P4. It is also stated that petitioner and others submitted all necessary documents before the Office of Sub Collector, Ottappalam on 12.04.2016. In the meanwhile Tahsildar, Adoor issued Ext.P6 communication dated 25.02.2016 directing the petitioner to produce all necessary documents evidencing relinquishment of land for taking further action for assignment of land in terms of Ext.P4. Later the property purchased as per Ext.P5 was taken over by the Government in furtherance of the land relinquishment application submitted by the petitioner. While so there was a change of the Government and thereafter the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P7 order dated 25.05.2017 cancelling Ext.P4 order claiming that the decision taken as per ExtP4 is contrary to the settled position of law in this regard by the Apex Court. Petitioner submits that the reason stated in Ext.P7 to cancel Ext.P4 is without any basis. In the said circumstance petitioner submitted a request before the 1 st respondent seeking review of Ext.P7 order, but the same was rejected as per Ext.P8. Thereupon petitioner has approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.34990 of 2018 and connected cases and this Court as per Ext.P9 common judgment remitted the matter back to the Government to re-examine the aspect pertaining to public interest after setting aside Exts.P7 and P8. The Government completely overlooking the direction issued in Ext.P9 judgment issued Ext.P10 order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 3. The specific case of the petitioners is that Ext.P10 order is issued contrary to the directions in Ext.P9 judgment. It is the contention of the petitioners that the finding in Ext.P9 that if the grievance of the petitioners is as projected in the writ petitions and the land is required for the enjoyment of the remaining land, certainly their claim would satisfy the test of public interest and a direction was issued in Ext.P9 judgment to the 1 st respondent to identify the public interest relatable to the petitioners. But while issuing Ext.P10 order the said aspect was not at all considered by the 1 st respondent. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the market value of the property mentioned in Ext.P10 is highly inflated and arrived without any basis. Earlier the District Collector, Pathanamthitta has sought for a report from the Tahsildar, Adoor as per Ext.P11 letter regarding the fair value and market value of the properties sought to be returned. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the market value of the property mentioned in Ext.P10 is highly inflated and arrived without any basis. Earlier the District Collector, Pathanamthitta has sought for a report from the Tahsildar, Adoor as per Ext.P11 letter regarding the fair value and market value of the properties sought to be returned. Thereupon Ext.P12 report was submitted by the Village Officer, Peringanad regarding the fair value and market value of the property. Later as per Ext.P13 report dated 02.11.2019 the Village Officer, Peringanadu fixed an amount of Rs.81,461/- as the value of category I land and Rs.65,169/- was fixed as the value of category II land. As per the records the said assessments of the Village Officer was made after comparing ten contemporary sale deeds registered between 2017 and 2019 at Adoor SRO in respect of the properties allegedly comparable to the properties in question. A perusal of the report of the Village Officer revealed that the Village Officer has referred to the value of the property situated within the limits of Adoor Municipality for assessing the value situated within the Panchayat area. Thereupon as per Ext.P14 report by the Tahsildar the value of the property was re-assessed as per report dated 01.11.2019 and re-fixed as Rs.97,644/- per Are for category I land and Rs.81,370/- per Are for category II land. Petitioners would contend that a perusal of Ext.P14 report by the Tahsildar would show that the value recorded in Exts.P14 and P10 are arrived without any legal and logical basis. No valid documents have been relied on by the Tahsildar to fix the price as stipulated in the valuation certificate and there is absolutely no basis for fixing the market value of the property as seen in Ext.P10. Petitioners rely on Ext.P15 to show the fair value of the land which is sought to be assigned in favour of the petitioners. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petitions have been filed. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.4564 of 2022 and the same was adopted in all the other writ petitions on the basis of an adoption memo. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petitions have been filed. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.4564 of 2022 and the same was adopted in all the other writ petitions on the basis of an adoption memo. In the counter affidavit it is admitted that the land was acquired from the possession of petitioners for Kallada Irrigation Project and that the project itself was dropped by the Government and that certain portion of the acquired land was set apart for distribution to landless persons under the Zero Landless Programme. It is also admitted that after considering the request of the petitioners to return the land covered in Block Nos.11 and 12 the Government entered into agreements with the petitioners. Accordingly they agreed that they would purchase land having an extent of five times in place of 183.07 Ares of land. Consequently 21 beneficiaries involved in the agreement purchased land in Sholayar Village and submitted applications before the Sub Collector, Palakkad for enabling the petitioners to relinquish their rights over the purchased property. Thereupon Government has issued Ext.P4 order dated 18.01.2016 granting power to the District Collector to assign the land having an extent of 183.07 Ares to the 21 beneficiaries. When the Government found that the benefit granted as per Ext.P4 was in violation of the settled position of law in the judgments of the Apex Court, Government has issued Ext.P7 order dated 25.05.2017 cancelling Ext.P4 and taking note of the above intervening circumstances the Sub Collector, Ottappalam rejected the application for relinquishment also. After the case was remitted back to the Government by this Court as per Ext.P10 judgment, the matter was considered again and the Government took a stand that the demand of the petitioners could not be accepted due to the huge difference in the value of the property and on the basis of the judgments of the Apex Court. It is further submitted that the fair value and market value of the property in Sholayar Village is Rs.4,500/- and 25,000/- per Are respectively. It is also submitted that the Government is holding the property for the benefit of the entire community of the State and therefore the Government cannot assign the land to the petitioners after accepting the property having less value which was purchased by the petitioners in the Sholayar Village. It is also submitted that the Government is holding the property for the benefit of the entire community of the State and therefore the Government cannot assign the land to the petitioners after accepting the property having less value which was purchased by the petitioners in the Sholayar Village. It is submitted that in the absence of public interest the petitioners cannot claim assignment of land by invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the learned Government Pleader relies on the judgment in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai , 1997 KHC 353 wherein it is held that when the acquired land is not fully utilised it cannot be re-conveyed to the owner at the price acquired and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. A detailed reply affidavit was also filed in answer to the counter affidavit filed by the Government. 6. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides. 7. This Court by Ext.P9 judgment while interfering with the orders impugned therein remitted the matter back for fresh consideration by the Government on a finding that in Ext.P4 Government Order the Government had not adverted to any public interest that was projected by the petitioners and also if the Government is of the view that the consideration paid to the property in exchange was inadequate and do not represent the market value of the land, the Government is free to re- examine the matter and if the Government finds there is no scope for any re-examination as above, the Government shall take necessary steps to implement Ext.P4 order dated 18.01.2016. Even while relegating the matter back to the Government for fresh consideration on the above two grounds there are certain findings and observations made by the court highlighting the parameters to be considered while re-considering the matter on the claim raised by the petitioners. The court on an elaborate discussion of the word “public interest” as found in Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules has held that even if the issue pertains to an individual that becomes public interest and it is not the commonality or collective nature of such demand that determines the public interest and that it may be a factor in certain circumstances an individual may also be placed in a precarious situation on account of actions beyond his control. It is for the Government to address such issues of the citizen. The court has also observed that merely because an individual made such a claim, it will not make such claim bereft of the public interest and that the heart of democracy lies in the capacity of the executive Government to address the grievances of the people and in doing so the Government ordain themselves to redress the grievances objectively focusing on the problems than the individuals and that power is not denied to the executive for the reason that the individual is before the Government and the problem presented is peculiar to him. The court has also observed that in the matter of land acquisition, the landowners are compelled to part away with their precious land consequent upon compulsory acquisition and that if the acquisition is only part of the land, it results in fragmentation of such land and the erstwhile landowners would be in a disadvantageous position to enjoy his remaining land and that in an involuntary acquisition, the Government can always consider returning the land acquired to the erstwhile owner, if such owner is having remaining land for utilisation and the Government, therefore, is required to address such grievances, which is a matter of governance. The court has further observed that if the Government find that their grievances are genuine, the Government is empowered to return the land to the erstwhile owners on a consideration based on the market value and that the Government would be justified in such circumstances in returning the land to the erstwhile owner on satisfying two parameters, ie., (i) the erstwhile owner is required to enjoy the property along with his remaining land and (ii) adequate consideration and the court has ordered that the Executive Government has power to dispose and assign the State property to an identifiable individual or entity on public interest. It is more important to note that in paragraph 28 of Ext.P9 judgment, which is extracted below, this Court has found that the Government in the particular case had originally decided to return the land to the erstwhile owners but the same was without examining whether the petitioners are eligible for return of the same and held that if the grievances of the petitioners as projected in these writ petitions and the land is required for the enjoyment of the remaining land, certainly, their claim would satisfy the test of public interest. “28. The Government in this case had originally decided to return the land to the erstwhile owners. This was without examining whether the petitioners are eligible for return in the light of the discussions as above. If the grievances of the petitioners as projected in these writ petitions and the land is required for the enjoyment of the remaining land, certainly, their claim would satisfy the test of public interest.” (underline supplied) The said finding in Ext.P9 has become final as the same is not challenged by the State in appropriate proceedings. It is on the said observations and findings that the matter was remitted back to the Government for re- consideration. The Government has issued Ext.P10 order rejecting the request of the petitioners. The reasons stated in Ext.P10 for rejecting the claim of the petitioners are as follows: (i) If the land is returned back to the petitioners as requested by them it will be in violation of the settled position of law by the Apex Court that a property which was acquired for a particular purpose and if it is not used for the said purpose there is no provision in the Act to return the same to the erstwhile owner. (ii) No public interest is seen in allotting the land given by the petitioners in Palakkad District for allotment of land to landless persons. (iii) The value of the land offered by the petitioners when compared to the value of the land which is acquired the value is comparatively less and therefore the property cannot be accepted in place of the acquired land. 8. (iii) The value of the land offered by the petitioners when compared to the value of the land which is acquired the value is comparatively less and therefore the property cannot be accepted in place of the acquired land. 8. It is not in dispute that the land was acquired for the purpose of providing an irrigation canal in connection with the Kallada Irrigation Project and the land acquired for the said project is having only 15 metres width having a distance of 3 kms. as evident from Ext.P1 report of the Village Officer, Peringanadu. The grievances raised by the petitioners are substantiated by Ext.P1 report of the Village Officer. It is reported that the acquisition of the land has resulted in bifurcating the property of the petitioners in two and that has resulted in a situation where there is no proper way to enter the property on the other side. The property acquired for construction of the canal, a portion of which was allotted to certain landless persons, is lying almost 10 ft. above the balance leftover property of the owner. While constructing latrines, etc. by the allottees there was serious issues regarding disposal of the waste and contamination of the well, etc. of the nearby property. There was law and order situation when one of the persons who has been allotted a portion of the acquired property under the scheme attempted to bury a dead body in the said property which has caused serious inconvenience to the nearby property owners. It is also reported in Ext.P1 that the construction of houses in the acquired which is admittedly having only a width of 15 metres will cause serious environmental and pollution issues in the locality including spreading of contagious diseases. It is further reported that the property could be given back to the petitioners on accepting the present market value or on condition that petitioners shall provide to the Government land which is five times the extent of land acquired for the purpose of Kallada Irrigation Project. Later on reports were called from the Village Officer, Sholayar, who also reported as per Ext.P2 series of reports that the land provided by the petitioners in Sholayar is suitable for allotment to landless persons. Later on reports were called from the Village Officer, Sholayar, who also reported as per Ext.P2 series of reports that the land provided by the petitioners in Sholayar is suitable for allotment to landless persons. Thereafter, taking into consideration all these aspects, the Government decided as per Ext.P4 to return back the land to the petitioners on accepting the land offered by them in Sholayar Village which is five times the extent of land surrendered by the petitioners. Thereafter necessary documents were executed and relinquishment letter was also submitted pursuant to Ext.P6. It is thereafter that Ext.P7 order was issued cancelling Ext.P4. Though a review petition was filed that was also rejected by Ext.P8. It is challenging the same that W.P.(C) No.34990 of 2018 and connected cases were filed which led to the issuance of Ext.P9 judgment. This Court has already held in Ext.P9 judgment that if the grievance of the petitioners is as projected in these writ petitions and the land is required for the enjoyment of the remaining land, certainly, their claim would satisfy the test of public interest. In the light of the documents referred to above and especially Ext.P1 report of the Village Officer, Peringanadu, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioners satisfies the test of public interest as held by this Court in paragraph 28 of Ext.P9 judgment. But, while taking a decision as per Ext.P10 this aspect was not considered at all by the Government. 9. Yet another aspect to be noted is the allotment of land to landless persons. Admittedly the land under acquisition which was acquired from the petitioners is for the purpose of construction of a canal which is having only a width of 15 metres. If the Government was required to acquire any land for the purpose of allotment of land to landless persons, definitely the Government will not be acquiring a land in the nature of the land acquired from the petitioners which is having only a width of 15 metres. The acquired land having only 15 metres width is only suitable for construction of a canal. Now the said acquired land has divided the property of the petitioners into two whereby denied access to the petitioners to the other side of the property. The acquired land having only 15 metres width is only suitable for construction of a canal. Now the said acquired land has divided the property of the petitioners into two whereby denied access to the petitioners to the other side of the property. As reported by the Village Officer, Peringanadu serious problems were created both to the petitioners as well as the persons who have been allotted a certain portion of the land. I am of the opinion that a property having only 15 metres width will not be ideal for construction of a house and for a normal basic living condition for a family. Further Ext.P2 report revealed that the property identified by the petitioners for allotment to landless persons is suitable for constructing houses. The necessity for providing a suitable land for landless persons is also a concern of the Government which is also in public interest. That aspect was also not taken into consideration by the Government while issuing Ext.P1. In view of the above facts and circumstances I am of the view that there is public interest involved in the request made by the petitioners. If public interest is involved, naturally the Government has power under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules to assign the land dispensing with any of the provisions of the said Rules. Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules reads as follows: “ 24. Powers of Government .- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Government may, 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.” 10. The suitability of land offered by the petitioners in the Sholayar Village was found in favour as per Ext.P2 series of reports which found that the said land is suitable for residential purpose and that land has no anomalies like property of Scheduled Tribe community, forest land, puramboke land, excess land, etc. There is absolutely no finding in Ext.P10, except regarding the value of the property offered, that the land offered by the petitioners in Sholayar Village is not suitable for being allotted to landless persons. Therefore the finding in Ext.P10 that there is no public interest involved in accepting the land offered by the petitioners for being allotted to landless persons also cannot be accepted. 11. Therefore the finding in Ext.P10 that there is no public interest involved in accepting the land offered by the petitioners for being allotted to landless persons also cannot be accepted. 11. The other question is regarding the value of the property offered by the petitioners when compared to the land acquired from the petitioners. True, this Court in Ext.P9 has directed that the Government will be free to consider the said aspect while taking a decision as directed in the said judgment. Ext.P14 is a report submitted by the Tahsildar, Adoor to the District Collector, Pathanamthitta regarding the finalisation of the value of the acquired property. Ext.P14 report would reveal that as regard category I property fair value could be considered as Rs.1,50,000/- for one Are and the market value could be determined as Rs.4,25,000/- and in respect of category II property fair value could be considered as Rs.1,00,000/- for one Are and Rs.2,75,000/- as market value. Going by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent, the fair value and market value of the property in Sholayar Village is Rs.4,500/- and Rs.25,000/- per Are respectively. It is pertinent to note that the Tahsildar has given the report based on the report called for from the Village Officer. The Village Officer in Ext.P13 report has specifically held that no documents were available which were registered within three years in Pallickal Grama Panchayat (where the acquired property is situated) and the Village Officer has taken into consideration documents registered in respect of the properties coming within the jurisdiction of Adoor Municipality for arriving at the potential market value of the property. I find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the said valuation arrived at in Ext.P13 by the Village Officer which is based on the sale deeds executed in respect of properties comprised in Adoor Municipality cannot be accepted since the acquired property is in Pallickal Village and the sale deeds considered by the Village Officer for arriving at the potential market value are all in respect of properties coming within the Adoor Municipality, which would fetch a much higher value than a property which is situated in Pallickal Panchayat. Therefore, Ext.P14 valuation statement prepared taking into consideration the documents registered in respect of the properties comprised in Adoor Municipality cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, Ext.P14 valuation statement prepared taking into consideration the documents registered in respect of the properties comprised in Adoor Municipality cannot be accepted at all. Further more, in Ext.P13 it could be seen that taking into consideration the average value of even ten documents which are properties coming within the jurisdiction of Adoor Municipality the value of one Are of land is fixed as Rs.65,169/- and then on what basis the value of the land was fixed is not discernible from Ext.P14 report. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the value of the land as arrived at in Ext.P13 being Rs.65,169/- per Are, when compared to five times the value of land in Sholayar Village, the market value of which was determined as Rs.25,000/- per Are, ie., (25x5) which is Rs.1,25,000/-, then definitely the value of the property offered at Sholayar is comparable to the value of land acquired from the petitioners. This aspect was also not considered by the Government while issuing the impugned order. 12. Though the learned Government Pleader relies on the judgment in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai , 1997 KHC 353 in support of his contentions wherein the Apex Court has held that when the area acquired by the Government is not fully utilised it cannot be reconveyed to the owner at the price acquired, this Court in a similar situation in Kollam District wherein the property was acquired for construction of canal as part of Kallada Irrigation Project itself, which was later abandoned and when one of the property owners approached this Court seeking return of the said land, considered the issue in W.A.Nos.2430 and 2370 of 2008 wherein Bhaskaran Pillai ’s case was distinguished holding that in Bhaskaran Pillai ’s case cited supra though land was acquired for public purpose, the major portion of the land was utilised for public purpose for which it was acquired and thereafter a portion of the land acquired was left unused and it is in such a case that the Apex Court has held that the land so left shall either be sold in public auction or shall be assigned for public purpose and in the case considered by the Division Bench the project was abandoned and no portion of the land notified was used for any public purpose. In the said judgment it was also found that the land was not chosen for any public purpose for which it was acquired or any other purpose and no other Government department has also opted for this land and directed that if the petitioner therein repays to the District Collector the amount paid to him under the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer with interest of 15% per annum, the property shall be reconveyed to the petitioner therein. It is true that only a portion of the property acquired was claimed by the petitioner therein and there were other properties left for which no other person raised a claim. Therefore in the said judgment the court has further directed that the District Collector shall attempt to sell the property in public auction and if there is any difference in the land value the petitioner therein was also directed to pay the additional amount based on the value obtained in the public auction conducted in respect of nearby similarly situated property. In the present case there is no occasion to sell the nearby properties since the whole of the property acquired except the land which has already been allotted to landless persons has been claimed by the petitioners herein. The facts of the case dealt with in W.A.No.2430 of 2008 and connected case is exactly similar to that of the case of the petitioners. Not even an inch of land acquired has been used for the purpose for which it was acquired nor it was used for any other purpose. No other department has raised any claim for the said land and all through out the property was in the possession of the petitioners themselves. Therefore on the basis of the judgment in W.A.No.2430 of 2008 and connected case which distinguished Bhaskaran Pillai ’s case cited supra on the ground that not even an inch of the property acquired was used for the purpose for which it was acquired and the project was abandoned, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioners has to be considered in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.2430 and 2370 of 2008 . 13. It is also to be noted that the land was compulsory acquired for a public purpose, for which the petitioners cannot object, but only seek for getting adequate compensation. 13. It is also to be noted that the land was compulsory acquired for a public purpose, for which the petitioners cannot object, but only seek for getting adequate compensation. But it is a fact that the property of the petitioners has been divided into two and access to the other side of the property was curtailed due to the acquisition proceedings Since the property acquired is only 15 metres width, I have already opined that this is not suitable for constructing proper residential accommodations for landless persons. The authorities as per Ext.P2 series of reports have found that the land offered by the petitioners in Sholayar Village is suitable for allotment of land to landless persons. The only objection was regarding the difference in the value of the property offered by the petitioners. This Court has also found that the said valuation arrived at as per Ext.P14 based on the sales deeds executed in Adoor Municipality is absolutely without any basis and cannot be accepted at all. Further it is also to be noted that the value arrived in Ext.P13 report of the Village Officer when compared to the market value of the property offered in Sholayar Village, there is no serious difference in the market value also and the said aspect was not duly considered by the Government while issuing the impugned order. Though the acquisition was made as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , the Government ought to have considered the drastic change made in the new Act, ie. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , especially Section 101 , which mandates that when any land acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case may be, or to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion in the manner may be prescribed by the appropriate Government. The change in the policy of the Government ought to have been considered while issuing Ext.P10. In view of the above facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the Government. Accordingly Ext.P10 is set aside. The change in the policy of the Government ought to have been considered while issuing Ext.P10. In view of the above facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the Government. Accordingly Ext.P10 is set aside. The Government shall re- consider the objection regarding the difference in the value of the property acquired from the petitioners and the property offered by the petitioners in Sholayar Village after getting a proper valuation from the authorities concerned. While arriving at the valuation of the acquired land the authorities shall also take note of the fact that the property which is acquired from the petitioners is a property having only a width of 15 metres. While re-considering the matter as directed above the Government shall take a pragmatic view taking into consideration the inconvenience caused to the petitioners and also the suitability of the land offered to the allottees as evident from Ext.P1 report of the Village Officer and also Ext.P2 series of suitability report submitted by the Village officer in respect of the property offered by the petitioners in Sholayar Village. After considering the issue regarding land value and if the Government is satisfied with the value of the property offered in Sholayar Village by the petitioners when compared to the land acquired in Adoor Village, necessary steps should be taken by the Government to implement Ext.P4 order. A decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and any other affected parties. Writ petitions are disposed of as above.