JUDGMENT Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2016 of the 2 nd respondent District Collector, Idukki and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to assign the petitioners 4 Acres of land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, which is under the exclusive possession of the petitioners. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners belong to a Scheduled Caste community, namely, Hindu Pallan. They are in absolute possession and enjoyment of 4 Acres of revenue land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village. Their father, Joseph @ Kalimuthu, served as a Soldier in the Indian Army from 1943 to 1946. He had obtained possession over 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village during the year 1967. He cultivated the said land with seasonal crops like lemon grass, tapioca and vegetables. 3. In the writ petition, it is stated that the 4 th respondent Village Officer had issued possession certificates to the petitioners’ father on 18.02.1969 and 22.08.1992. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of certificate No.410/92 dated 22.08.1992 issued by the 4 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakanal, wherein it is stated that Joseph, S/o.Chathan, a resident of Singukandam Kara, Suryanelli, Chinnakanal Village is in possession and enjoyment of 4 (four) Acres of Revenue land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, in which he is cultivating lemon grass, coffee, plantain, youkali, etc., from 1969 onwards. A sketch of the property is also produced as part of Ext.P1 certificate. 4. According to the petitioners, their father submitted an application for the assignment of land before the Taluk Office, as evident from Ext.P2 postal acknowledgement card, which bears the signature of the Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment) made on 08.10.1991. After the death of the petitioners’ father, being the legal heirs, they made applications for assignment as Application Nos.1495/2000 and 1496/2000 respectively. Based on the said applications, the petitioners were summoned to appear in the office of the Survey Superintendent of Survey and Land Records (Land Assignment), Rajakkad, on 13.03.2001 at 10.00 p.m., to provide the details for preparing records after surveying the land. The documents marked as Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the postcards issued from the said office in respect of Application Nos.1495/2000 and 1496/2000. The documents marked as Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the postcards issued from the said office in respect of Application Nos.1495/2000 and 1496/2000. In the year 2003, when the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk and the 4 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakanal, along with their men, came to the property and threatened to evict the petitioners, the 1 st petitioner filed O.S.No.108 of 2003 before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, a suit for injunction. The document marked as Ext.P4 is a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.108 of 2003, dated 10.04.2003. That suit was dismissed for default on costs, on 14.12.2005, due to the absence of the plaintiff, the 1 st petitioner herein, as evident from Ext.P4 judgment. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that during the pendency of the above suit, the 2 nd petitioner submitted an application before the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, for the issuance of patta in the prescribed form. The wife of the 1 st petitioner has also submitted an application before the Tahsildar. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners again submitted applications in the year 2010, before the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, as application Nos.803/2010 and 804/2010. However, without considering the pendency of the said applications, the 4 th respondent Tahsildar threatened to evict the petitioners from the property. 5. According to the petitioners, their father obtained possession over 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village during the year 1967. After the death of their father, the property was under the absolute possession of the petitioners. Thus, the claim of the petitioners for assignment is protected under Rule 7(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964, since the occupation of the land by the petitioners and their father started prior to 01.08.1971. Further, the petitioners are landless Schedule Caste members and they do not own or hold any land either in proprietary right or with security of tenure. 6. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents herein to assign them 2 Acres of land each, comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village. 6. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents herein to assign them 2 Acres of land each, comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment dated 11.02.2016, by directing the 2 nd respondent District Collector to pass orders on the application made by the petitioners seeking assignment of land, which is allegedly in their possession, within the time limit prescribed in that judgment. 7. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment dated 11.02.2016 in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011, the 2 nd respondent District Collector considered the application made by the petitioners for the assignment of 4 Acres of land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village and rejected the same by Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2016, for the reasons stated therein. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 8. On 04.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the same was admitted on file and the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. 9. The 3 rd respondent Tahsildar Udumbanchola Taluk has filed a statement dated 08.10.2020, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith as Annexure R3(a), which is the relevant extract of Certificate Register of Chinnakkanal Village for the year 1992. In the statement, it is contended inter alia that the land in question is comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.170pt, 169/1pt, 169/2pt and 186pt of Block Number 8 in Chinnakkanal Village. As found in Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2016, the petitioners are not eligible for assignment of the land, as sought in their applications, since neither the petitioners nor their predecessor had been in occupation of the land in question prior to 01.01.1977, as per the Resurvey Land Register prepared during the period 1974-75, which is the basic document relied upon for the determination of occupation of the land in question, based on which possession is claimed by the petitioners, which had already been earmarked for allotment to landless tribals. On the genuineness of Ext.P1 certificate No.410/92 dated 22.08.1992 produced along with the writ petition, the 3 rd respondent would point out, relying on Annexure R3(a) relevant extract of the Certificate Register of Chinnakkanal Village for the year 1992 that certificate bearing No.410/92 dated 20.08.1992 issued by the Village Officer, Chinnakanal is an income certificate issued to one Stuart J. Jacob S/o.Jacob, Valiyavila, Surianelly and not a possession certificate issued to the predecessor of the petitioners, in respect of 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, as stated in the writ petition. On 22.08.1992, i.e., the date shown in Ext.P1 certificate, only one certificate was issued from the Village Office, Chinnakanal, as evident from Annexure R3(a) Certificate Register, which was one issued in the name of one Viswanathan, S/o.Sukumaran, Chittedathu. Therefore, it is contended that Ext.P1 certificate produced by the petitioners is a bogus document. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the respondents. 11. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2016 of the 2 nd respondent District Collector, whereby the applications made by the petitioners for assignment of 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village stands rejected for the reasons stated therein. 12. The consideration of the aforesaid applications by the 2 nd respondent District Collector was pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.02.2016 in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011. The documents marked as Exts.P1 to P5 in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011 are the very same documents which are marked as Exts.P1 to P5 in this writ petition. 13. The petitioners claim that their father Joseph @Kalimuthu obtained possession over 4 Acres of Revenue land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village during the year 1967. He cultivated the said land with seasonal crops like lemon grass, tapioca and vegetables. In the writ petition, it is averred that the father of the petitioners was issued with possession certificates on 18.02.1969 and 22.08.1992 by the 4 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakanal. He cultivated the said land with seasonal crops like lemon grass, tapioca and vegetables. In the writ petition, it is averred that the father of the petitioners was issued with possession certificates on 18.02.1969 and 22.08.1992 by the 4 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakanal. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of certificate No.410/92 dated 22.08.1992 issued by the 4 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakanal, wherein it is stated that Joseph, S/o.Chathan, a resident of Singukandam Kara, Suryanelli, Chinnakanal Village is in possession and enjoyment of 4 (four) Acres of Revenue land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, in which he is cultivating lemon grass, coffee, plantain, youkali, etc., from 1969 onwards. The words ‘from 1969 onwards’ appear as an interlineation in the last line of the first paragraph of Ext.P1 certificate. 14. Along with the statement filed by the 3rd respondent Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk, Annexure R3(a) relevant extract of the Certificate Register of Chinnakkanal Village for the year 1992 is placed on record, as per which certificate bearing No.410/92 dated 20.08.1992 issued by the Village Officer, Chinnakanal is an income certificate issued to one Stuart J. Jacob S/o.Jacob, Valiyavila, Surianelly and not a possession certificate issued to the father of the petitioners in respect of 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, as stated in the writ petition. Annexure R3(a) would also show that, on 22.08.1992, i.e., the date shown in Ext.P1 certificate, only certificate issued from the Village Office, Chinnakanal is one in the name of Viswanathan, S/o.Sukumaran, Chittedathu. Therefore, Annexure R3(a) Certificate Register of Chinnakkanal Village for the year 1992 produced along with the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar would cut the very root of the case advanced by the petitioners, relying on Ext.P1 certificate dated 22.08.1992, that the father of the petitioners who obtained possession over 4 Acres of Revenue land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village during the year 1967, cultivated the said land with seasonal crops like lemon grass, tapioca and vegetables from the year 1969 onwards. 15. 15. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment dated 11.02.2016, by directing the 2 nd respondent District Collector to pass orders on the applications made by the petitioners for assignment of 4 Acres of land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, which is allegedly in their possession, within the time limit prescribed in that judgment. 16. In the first paragraph of Ext.P6 judgment dated 11.02.2016 in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011, the learned Single Judge noticed that the case of the petitioners is that when their father was alive, he had filed an application seeking assignment of 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964, claiming protection under Rule 7(1) of the said Rules. 17. As per Rule 7(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964, where any person is in occupation of Government lands under lease, whether current or time expired, or by way of encroachment not considered objectionable such land, if such occupation is before the 1 st day of August, 1971, shall be assigned to him on registry. 18. After considering the nature of contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent District Collector, in paragraph 4 of Ext.P6 judgment the learned Single Judge found that the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get the land assigned under Rule 7(1) of the Rules is a disputed question, which requires evidence and it cannot be decided in a writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction and power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. In Ext.P6 judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed the contention of the 2 nd respondent District Collector in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are in possession of 1.5 Acres of land comprised in Chinnakanal Village, Udumpanchola Taluk, which is 500 Mts. away from the land claimed to be in their possession. Further, the 4 Acres of land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, which has been encroached by the petitioners recently, is earmarked for distribution to landless tribal. The said land does not find a place in the Re-survey Land Register prepared in 1974-75. Moreover, the petitioners are the beneficiaries of the housing scheme implemented by the Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat. 20. Further, the 4 Acres of land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, which has been encroached by the petitioners recently, is earmarked for distribution to landless tribal. The said land does not find a place in the Re-survey Land Register prepared in 1974-75. Moreover, the petitioners are the beneficiaries of the housing scheme implemented by the Chinnakanal Grama Panchayat. 20. In Hidayathulla v. State of Kerala and others [ 2021 (6) KHC 129 ] this Court followed the law laid down by the Division Bench in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government and others [ 2007 (3) KHC 365 ] that various provisions in the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules would unmistakably show that the Act and the Rules are intended to protect landless people by assigning to them government lands for cultivation and other purposes. The Act provides for assignment of Government land absolutely or subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed. The Rules provides for assignment of lands on registry for purposes of personal cultivation. The Rules also provides for granting assignment of small extents of land for constructing houses and for the beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. The Rules contain provisions for extending priority to landless people, members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Ex-servicemen, persons disabled in active military service, persons who are dependents of those who are killed or disabled while in active military service, small holders whose family income is less than Rs.10,000/-, certain category of kumkidars, etc. The procedure for assignment is also provided in the Rules. Provision is made for preparing the lists of lands to be reserved for Government or public purposes and the lands to be set apart for assignment on registry. The lists are to be approved by the Government or an authorized authority. The authority to approve the list of lands available for lease or license shall be District Collector. Various authorities are also provided to whom the applications under the different categories are to be submitted. We are of the view that the Act and Rules are not intended for enriching persons who hold extensive lands. Assignment on Registry of Government lands to such persons would defeat the very purpose of the Act and Rules. There is no vested right in any person to claim assignment on registry of Government land. 21. We are of the view that the Act and Rules are not intended for enriching persons who hold extensive lands. Assignment on Registry of Government lands to such persons would defeat the very purpose of the Act and Rules. There is no vested right in any person to claim assignment on registry of Government land. 21. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment dated 11.02.2016 in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011, the 2 nd respondent District Collector issued Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2016, whereby the application made by the petitioners for assignment of 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village stands rejected for the reasons stated therein. In Ext.P7 order, the 2 nd respondent found that the assignment of Revenue lands in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village till the year 1980 was made under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules , 1964 and thereafter, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupation of Forest Lands Prior to 01.01.1977) Special Rules, 1993. 22. As per Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules, ‘assignee’ means a person to whom land is assigned under these rules by regularisation of occupation of land as defined in clause (g) and includes his heirs or successor-in-interest. As per Rule 2(g), ‘regularisation of occupation’ means regularisation of occupation prior to 01.01.1977 of forest land and lands in Cardamom Hill Reserve of Idukki District. 23. As per Rule 2(e) of the Special Rules, ‘joint verification’means the verification of Forest lands conducted by the Revenue and Forest Departments to establish the eligibility for regularisation of the occupation of the said lands prior to 01.01.1977. As per Rule 2(f), ‘land’ means the Forest land subjected to joint verification as defined in clause (e) and Cardamom Hill Reserve lands which are converted for non- cardamom cultivation prior to 01.01.1977 in Idukki District which have been transferred from Forest Department to Revenue Department and covered in the Resurvey Records and list of lands recommended to Government of India for concurrence under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 but does not include lands in wildlife sanctuaries. 24. As per Rule 4 of the Special Rules, the extent of land that may be assigned to a family under these Rules shall not exceed four acres. 24. As per Rule 4 of the Special Rules, the extent of land that may be assigned to a family under these Rules shall not exceed four acres. The land in possession of a family in excess of four acres shall be resumed by Government and the said family shall not be eligible for any compensation for improvements effected on such land. As per Rule 5, the land sought for assignment under these rules should have been under occupation prior to 01.01.1977 by the assignee or his predecessor/successor- in-interest. As per the proviso to Rule 5, the lands which were under possession and enjoyment of Scheduled Tribes prior to 01.01.1977 and subsequently passed on to a person other than a Scheduled Tribe shall not be assigned to such person even if the occupation by such person is prior to 01.01.1977. 25. Rule 6 of the Special Rules deals with the list of assignable lands and applications. As per Rule 6(1), the joint verification reports or the records of resurvey of the land conducted under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 containing the details of lands found eligible for assignment under these Rules shall be published in the concerned Village Offices and Taluk Offices inviting applications for assignment within the period specified therein. As per Rule 6(2), application for assignment shall be made in Form No.2 before the Tahsildar within seven days of the publication of the list. As per Rule 6(3), each application shall bear a court fee stamp of the value of Rs.2/-. As per Note to Rule 6(3), applicants belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes shall be exempt from affixing court fee stamps on their applications. 26. Rule 7 of the Special Rules deals with enquiry into claims and objections. As per Rule 7(1), immediately after the receipt of the applications for assignment, the Tahsildar shall publish in the Village Office and Taluk Office a notice in Form No.3 under his signature inviting claims or objections in writing from the interested persons to the regularisation of occupation by assignment on registry of the land. As per Rule 7(2), claims or objections, if any, shall be preferred within seven days from the date of publication of the notice. As per Rule 7(2), claims or objections, if any, shall be preferred within seven days from the date of publication of the notice. As per Rule 7(3), in case where claims or objections have been preferred the Tahsildar shall duly enquire into them and pass orders thereon within fifteen days of receipt of such claims or objections, recording the reasons in writing for rejection or admission of the claim or objection as the case may be. As per the proviso to Rule 7(3), the Government may, if they consider it necessary so to do in public interest, vary or reduce or dispense with the time limits stipulated under sub- rules (2) and (3). As per Rule 7(4), the fact of the disposal of the claims or objections, together with reasons for such disposal, shall be communicated to the person who preferred the claim or objection. As per Rule 7(5), if no claims or objections are preferred, the Tahsildar shall straight away assign the land to the applicant. As per Rule 8, after the disposal of the claims and objections in the manner specified in Rule 7, the Tahsildar shall prepare a list of eligible applicants, and the order of assignments shall be issued in Form No.4. 27. The provisions contained in the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupation of Forest Lands Prior to 01.01.1977) Special Rules make it explicitly clear that the land sought for assignment under these rules should have been under occupation prior to 01.01.1977 by the assignee or his predecessor/successor-in-interest. An application for assignment made in Form No.2 before the Tahsildar shall be in respect of lands found eligible for assignment under these Rules, included in the list of assignable lands published in the manner specified under Rule 6 of the Special Rules. 28. In Bijumon K.R. v. State of Kerala [2024 (2) KHC 28] a Division Bench of this Court held that a combined reading of Rules 5 to 8 of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupation of Forest Lands Prior to 01.01.1977) Special Rules make it clear that this was one-time measure envisaged under the Rules to assign the land to those who have occupied such land prior to 01.01.1977. That means, if the applicant for assignment or his predecessor was in occupation prior to 01.01.1977, he will be eligible to apply for assignment provided that the land is included in the list of assignable lands under Rule 6. If the land is not included in the assignable list, no one can seek for assignment of the land coming under the meaning of land covered by Rule 2(f). The preparation of the list was a one-time exercise under Rule 6, as it has to be done by a joint verification of reports by revenue and forest. As seen from Rule 6 itself, it was mandated that details of land found eligible for assignment have to be published in Village Offices and Taluk Offices, inviting applications for assignment within the period specified therein. That means, if the land was not included in the list, an occupant of such land has to raise an objection against the non-inclusion of the land in the list. Once the list is published and finalised, the list cannot be expanded after a long lapse of time by claiming that it is an assignable land under the Special Rules. 29. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 ] , a Three- Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. 30. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. 31. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. 32. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [ (2011) 10 SCC 259 ] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 33. Viewed in the light of the laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.02.2016 in W.P.(C)No.11699 of 2011 is one directing the 2 nd respondent District Collector to pass orders on the application filed by the petitioners seeking assignment of land comprised in Survey No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, strictly in accordance with law, i.e., strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the field. Therefore, the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment would not enable the petitioners to seek assignment of the land comprised in Survey No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, contrary to the statutory provisions governing the field. 34. In the instant case, in the Re-survey Land Register, the land having an extent of 4 Acres in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village is not shown as forest land under occupation prior to 01.01.1977. The names of the petitioners or their predecessor are also not shown in the Re-survey Land Register. The petitioners could not produce any reliable documents to prove the occupation of the said property prior to 01.01.1977. As already noticed hereinbefore, the words ‘from 1969 onwards’ appear as an interlineation in the last line of the first paragraph of Ext.P1 certificate No.410/92 dated 22.08.1992 issued by the 4 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakanal. Annexure R3(c) Certificate Register of Chinnakanal Village for the year 1992 produced along with the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent would show that certificate bearing No.410/92 dated 20.08.1992 issued by the Village Officer, Chinnakanal is an income certificate issued to one Stuart J. Jacob and not a possession certificate issued to the father of the petitioners in respect of 4 Acres of land comprised in Survey No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, as stated in the writ petition. The said Certificate Register would also show that, on 22.08.1992, i.e., the date shown in Ext.P1 certificate, the only certificate issued from the Village Office, Chinnakanal is one in the name of Vishwanathan, S/o. Sukumaran, Chittedathu. 35. In such circumstances, the reasoning of the 2 nd respondent District Collector in Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2016, for rejecting the application made by the petitioners for assignment of 4 Acres of land comprised in Survey No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.