JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners in the respective writ petitions seeking various reliefs pertaining to the properties occupied by them at Venkayappara Tribal Settlement in Anaviratty Village of Idukki District. In W.P.(C)No.12982 of 2022 the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 notice dated 10.02.2022 issued by the Tribal Development Officer, Adimaly, directing the deceased 1 st petitioner therein to occupy the 1 Acre of property allotted to him in Chinnakanal Village and Ext.P9 letter dated 25.02.2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government to the 1 st petitioner informing him that the Government have no authority to consider the revision filed by him under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 and also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent State of Kerala to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 revision filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P6 order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the 4 th respondent Sub Collector, Devikulam dismissing the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioners against the decision of the Tahsildar, Devikulam, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for assignment of the land in their occupation. In W.P.(C)No.41348 of 2023 the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to assign 2.5 acres of land each to the petitioners, which they claim as in their possession at Venkayappara Tribal Settlement. 2. The petitioners 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022 as well as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.41348 of 2023 are members of scheduled tribe community and the 5th petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022 is a member of scheduled caste community. All the petitioners were originally residing at Mathikettan tribal settlement in Idukki District. According to the petitioners, during the year 2002, they were evicted from Mathikettan settlement by giving some assurances for their rehabilitation. They were assured that they would be assigned with 4 Acres each at different places in accordance with the agreement entered into between the Tribal Union and the Government. In terms of that agreement, they were granted patta for one Acre of land each in Chinnakanal village. The 5 th petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022, not being a member of scheduled tribe, was not given the patta. However, she and her family also moved with the remaining petitioners to Chinnakanal village. In terms of that agreement, they were granted patta for one Acre of land each in Chinnakanal village. The 5 th petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022, not being a member of scheduled tribe, was not given the patta. However, she and her family also moved with the remaining petitioners to Chinnakanal village. The petitioners could not develop their lands allotted at Chinnakanal due to elephant attack. Therefore, the District Collector, Idukki, permitted them to reside in the land earmarked for tribals at Venkayappara tribal settlement situated in Anaviratty village. They developed the land occupied by them at Anaviratty village, by cultivating bamboo, cardamom, coffee, pepper, etc. Even though the petitioners submitted applications before the Additional Tahsildar Devikulam for issuance of patta for the land in their respective possession in Venkayappara tribal settlement at Anaviratty village, no action has been taken on those applications. Hence they were constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.2026 of 2014, seeking a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to assign 2.5 Acres each to the petitioners after taking back the land allotted to them at Chinnakanal village. During the pendency of that writ petition, one Vincy Cherian and others approached this Court claiming possessory right over 50 acres of Government land by filing W.P.(C) No.20292 of 2014. By the common judgment dated 17.12.2015, this Court disposed of the writ petitions holding that the claim of assignment of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2026 of 2014 shall be considered depending upon the outcome of the challenge made by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20292 of 2014. If the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismisses the appeal filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20292 of 2014, necessarily the application of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.2026 of 2014 shall be considered within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2.1 On 31.08.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the aforementioned Vincy Cherian and others. Thereafter, the petitioners informed that fact to the Additional Tahsildar, Devikulam. However, the Additional Tahsildar did not consider the application of the petitioners and hence they approached this Court by filing Con. Case (C) No. 1238 of 2018. 2.1 On 31.08.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by the aforementioned Vincy Cherian and others. Thereafter, the petitioners informed that fact to the Additional Tahsildar, Devikulam. However, the Additional Tahsildar did not consider the application of the petitioners and hence they approached this Court by filing Con. Case (C) No. 1238 of 2018. On 06.12.2018, this Court closed the contempt case directing the respondents therein to consider the application for assignment to be submitted by the petitioners and to take appropriate action within six months from the date of receipt of the application. Thereafter, on 16.01.2019 the petitioners submitted applications for assignment under the Land Assignment Act and the Rules made thereunder. But the 5th respondent- Tahsildar, Devikulam, rejected the application filed by the petitioners without assigning any valid reason as per proceedings No.B3-2555/2016 dated 06.11.2019. The Tahsildar, Devikulam, reported before the 4th respondent-Sub Collector, Devikulam, that the grievances of the petitioners are genuine. But, without considering the facts and circumstances, the 4th respondent, rejected the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioners. Even though the petitioners preferred revision before the Government, the same was not considered and hence the petitioners approached this Court with the above writ petitions. 3. In W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022 the 4 th respondent and in W.P.(C) No.41348 of 2023 the 5 th respondent filed counter affidavits opposing the averments in the writ petitions. 4. Paragraphs 2 to 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022 read thus: “2. The petitioners were residents of Mathikettan Tribal Settlement. In 2002, the petitioners and other tribal families were evicted from Mathikettan Settlement and were granted patta, for one acre of land each in Chinnakanal Village, (cid:220)dumbanchola Taluk. It is submitted that they refused to occupy the said property, alleging wild animal interventions in that place and they did not develop their allotted lands or resided there. 3. It is submitted that instead of residing at the assigned land, about 16 families had started residing in Block No.12, Old Survey. No. 229/1, 229/2 Re Survey No. 28,29,30,31,32,33 in Anaviratty Village, Devikulam Taluk- during 2002, on their own volition. Now around 18 familles are residing there. Sri. Thevan Thankachan & Others had filed WP(C)No.2026/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala for assignment of the above mentioned encroached land to the said families. 4. No. 229/1, 229/2 Re Survey No. 28,29,30,31,32,33 in Anaviratty Village, Devikulam Taluk- during 2002, on their own volition. Now around 18 familles are residing there. Sri. Thevan Thankachan & Others had filed WP(C)No.2026/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala for assignment of the above mentioned encroached land to the said families. 4. It is submitted that the said land is included in Cardamom Lease land and 99.42 acres of land were allotted on lease to one Sri.Ouseph Varkey, Elanjickal (H), Venkayappara Estate, Anaviratty.P.O. who is the grandfather of Sri.Vincy Cherian. The lease period of this land has expired. About 50 acres of the said land is still in the Possession of Sri. Vincy Cherian. Sri.Vincy Cherian also had submitted application for assignment of the said land, which stands rejected. 5. Sri.Vincy Cherian, thereafter, filed WP (C)No 20292/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala seeking assignment of the said property. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said writ petition as well as the appeal filed in that regard. Against the said verdicts, Sri. Vincy Cherian and others had filed a Civil Appeal No.6465-6466/2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 6. It is submitted that as per judgment in WP(C)-2026/2014 and WP(C)-29292/2014 dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, it was directed that the claim raised by Sri.Thevan Thankachan & Others is to be considered subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeal No. 6465-6466/2016, then pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The said Civil Appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, as per the direction in judgment in WP(C)-2026/2014, the application submitted by Sri.Thevan Thankachan & Others for land assignment was considered by the appropriate authority. However, the same could not be concluded within the time frame stipulated by the Hon’ble Court. As such, Sri.Thevan Thankachan & Others had preferred a contempt case before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, against the Tahsildar, Devikulam. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the Devikulam Tahsildar rejected their application on the basis of the report from the Anaviratty Village officer, which clearly stated that the said land is Cardamom Kuthakapattam land. As such, their application for Land assignment was rejected as per proceedings No.B3-2555/2016 dated 06.11.2019. 7. Sri. Vincy Cherian thereafter filed WP(C)-39322/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala once again seeking assignment of the said land claimed by him. As such, their application for Land assignment was rejected as per proceedings No.B3-2555/2016 dated 06.11.2019. 7. Sri. Vincy Cherian thereafter filed WP(C)-39322/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala once again seeking assignment of the said land claimed by him. In compliance of the judgment dated 27.03.2018 in WPC No.39322/2017, the Government of Kerala issued G.O. (MS) No. 416/2018/Rev dated 07.11.2018 wherein it was stated that the land claimed for Assignment pertains to the expired cardomam Kuthakapattam land and that as such, the same cannot be assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 or The Kerala Land Assignment (Regularization of occupation of Forest Land prior to 01.01.1977) Special Rules, 1993. A true copy of G.O(MS) No.416/2018/Rev dated 07.11.2018 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(a). The said Government Order is applicable in case of the application submitted by the petitioners as well. 8. It is submitted that Thevan Thankachan and Others submitted appeal before the 4th respondent on 23.11.2019 against the Proceedings No.B3-2555/2016 dated 06.11.2019 of Tahsildar Devikulam, rejecting their application for assignment of land. Thereafter, petitioners approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala by filing WP(C)-6587/2021 seeking consideration of the Statutory Appeal by the 4th respondent. The same culminated in Judgment dated 15.03.2021, whereby the 4th respondent was directed to consider the appeal filed by the petitioners. In compliance of the said direction the 4th respondent had conducted a hearing of the petitioners and rejected their claim by proceedings No. RDODVM/111/2021-A2 dated 29.10.2021. 9. The petitioners have been assigned the land in Chinnakanal Village by Tahsildar, Udumbanchola during 2003 as per Tribal Rehabilitation project. The petitioners have not utilized the said lands for the purpose of assignment yet. It is submitted that when this matter came up for consideration in the TRDM meeting held on 17.05.2019, it was decided to cancel the pattas issued to the petitioners since the said land has not been utilized for cultivation. Thereafter, the Tasildar Udumbanchola issued notice to the parties to utilize the land for cultivation or to reside in this property, within the prescribed time, failing which the assignment will be cancelled.” 5. Similarly, paragraphs 4 to 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.41348 of 2023 read thus: “4. Thereafter, the Tasildar Udumbanchola issued notice to the parties to utilize the land for cultivation or to reside in this property, within the prescribed time, failing which the assignment will be cancelled.” 5. Similarly, paragraphs 4 to 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.41348 of 2023 read thus: “4. It is submitted that the petitioners are unauthorized inhabitants of Mathikettanchola and they were evicted from there during the year 2002 and given land with an extent of 1 acre to each family in Chinnakkanal Village of Udumbanchola Taluk. They had not resided there as the land was under the threat of wild elephants. Later they occupied the land in Anaviratty Village which is possessed by them presently and are praying for issue of patta for the same. 5. It is submitted that the land was originally leased out to Sri.Ouseph, Kozhippallil and Elanjickal Varkey Antony as Cardomom Kuthakappattom for cardamom cultivation. Out of the above land Sri.Vincy Cheriyan held possession of 50 acres of land. The lease was not renewed later. Some of the successors of the above persons had submitted application for issuance of patta. 6. It is submitted that some of the evictees from Mathikettanchola who had now occupied land in Venkayapara had filed COURT WP(C) No 2026/2014 before the Hon’ble High Court with the demand that 2.05 acres of land shall be assigned to each person. Sri.Vincy Cheriyan and others who are some of the successors of the cardamom lease holder of the land had also filed WP(C) No. 20292/2014 for assignment of land in their name claiming right over the property. The writ petitions filed by Sri.Vincy Cheriyan was not allowed by this Hon’ble Court. 7. It is submitted that Sri.Vincy Cheriyan had also filed a Civil Appeal No. 6465 & 6466 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The Hon’ble High Court in a combined judgment in WP(C) No.39322/2017 & 2026/2014, had disposed both writ petitions on 17.12.2018 and ordered that; "the claim of the assignment of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2026/2014 shall be considered depending upon the outcome of the challenge made by the petitioners in WP(C) No.20292/2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble High Court in a combined judgment in WP(C) No.39322/2017 & 2026/2014, had disposed both writ petitions on 17.12.2018 and ordered that; "the claim of the assignment of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2026/2014 shall be considered depending upon the outcome of the challenge made by the petitioners in WP(C) No.20292/2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismiss the appeal filed by the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 20292/2014, necessarily the application of the petitioners in WP(C) No.2026/2014 shall be considered within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court." 8. It is submitted that as the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, the Government issued order dated G.O.(Ms) No.416/158/REV, dated 07.11.2018 in compliance of judgment in WP(C) No.39322/2017 and 2026/2014. In the above Government Order it is clearly stated that the land in question is cardamom lease land and hence not assignable. Based on the said Government Order a proceedings No. B3-2655/16 dated 06.11.2019 is issued from this office rejecting the applications submitted by Thevar Thankachan and four others, the petitioners in WP(C) No.2026/2014. 9. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Court in an Interim Order dated 26.04.2022 in WP(C) No. 12982/2022 filed by Thevar Thankachan and four others has directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the respective properties in their possession during the pendency of the writ petition. 10. It is submitted that Sri.Vincy Cheriyan and others have also filed WP(C) No.26327/2021 wherein the Hon’ble Court had made an interim order dated 05.05.2023 stating that status quo as on the date of order shall be maintained with respect to the property in question. 11. It is submitted that he has also filed a Contempt of Court Case No.1966/2023 alleging non compliance of order dated 05.05.2023 in WP(C) No.26327/2021 and also claiming that status quo order had not been maintained. 12. It is submitted that all the above cases are pending for disposal. The petitioners in this WP(C) No.41348/2023 are similarly placed persons as those petitioners in WP(C) No. 2026/2014 and W.P.(C)No. 12982/2022. They have filed this writ petition for assignment of land in their possession. They have already claimed and admitted that they have been assigned one acre of land in Chinnakkanal Village. The land for which they have claimed possession is not an earmarked land for tribals. They have filed this writ petition for assignment of land in their possession. They have already claimed and admitted that they have been assigned one acre of land in Chinnakkanal Village. The land for which they have claimed possession is not an earmarked land for tribals. As per the findings in the Government Order No.416/18/REV dated 07.11.2018, it is clearly stated that this land is cardamom lease land and hence not assigned as per the Land Assignment Rules prevailing in the state.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022 as well as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.41348 of 2023 are members of scheduled tribe and the 5 th petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12982 of 2022 is a member of scheduled caste. They were evicted from their initial settlement by the government officials, by offering 4 acres of land in another place. However, they were granted only one acre each in Chinnakanal village. That land was seriously affected by the threat of wild elephants and hence the petitioners were moved to Venkayappara tribal settlement at Anaviratty village by the District Collector, Idukki. Even though this Court directed to consider the request of the petitioners for assignment of land in Anaviratty village after the disposal of the special leave petition filed by one Vincy Cherian and others, the authorities rejected their application. Hence the interference of this court is highly necessary by invoking the special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners were initially issued with patta for the respective properties allotted to them in Chinnakanal village. But they shifted to another place for the reason best known to them alone. Since the petitioners were already allotted properties at Chinnakanal village, they cannot once again be assigned properties in another village. Moreover, the land now trespassed by the petitioners is not included in the list of assignable land. It is a matter of policy decision of the Government to transfer that land to the list of assignable land and hence the request of the petitioners cannot be considered favourably. 9. Moreover, the land now trespassed by the petitioners is not included in the list of assignable land. It is a matter of policy decision of the Government to transfer that land to the list of assignable land and hence the request of the petitioners cannot be considered favourably. 9. From the pleading and materials on record and the submissions made at the bar, it is clear that the petitioners were allotted properties in Chinnakanal village of Idukki District and were issued with patta. Subsequently, they moved to another property, over which, one Vincy Cherian and other claimed right which was the subject matter in W.P.(C) No.2026 of 2014. According to the petitioners, they were inducted in the property claimed by Vincy Cherian and others by the District Collector, Idukki. But according to the respondents, the petitioners trespassed into that land. It is also the contention of the respondents that the land claimed by Vincy Cherian as well as the petitioners are not included in the list of assignable land under the Kerala Land Assignment Act . Though the claim of Vincy Cherian and others were negative by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, it will not give any special right to the appellants to claim patta for the properties in their occupation which came into their possession without any documents. Admittedly, they were issued with patta in respect of the properties assigned to them in Chinnakanal village. In such circumstances, they cannot claim any right on the property in Anaviratty Village, Devikulam Taluk, which according to the respondents is as rank trespassers. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought in these writ petitions. In the result, the writ petitions stand dismissed.