Sankaran, J.

The main question which arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether a person whose family possesses large extent of lands could apply for invoking the powers of the Government under Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, to assign, in public interest, dispensing with the provisions contained in the Rules, land adjoining his extensive lands and that too, to get assignment of an extent of land more than that could be assigned under the Rules.

2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition (appellant herein) was in possession of 34.97 acres of land. He filed a statement before the Land Board, as required under Section 85 (A)(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Board transferred the statement to the Taluk Land Board, Meenachil, under Section 85 A (3) of the said Act. The Taluk Land Board, in its proceedings dated 11-9-1976, accepted the return and held that the petitioner was not required to surrender any excess land. He was not required to surrender excess land since an extent of 22.49 acres was under the category exempted for the purpose of computing the ceiling area.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that his father was in possession of 4.35 acres of Government puramboke land. Out of the 4.35 acres of land, an extent of 1.15 acres of land was assigned to the father of the petitioner in Puthuvel Case No. 251 of 1105 M.E. The balance extent of 3.20 acres of Government land is the subject matter of the present case.

4. The petitioner filed Ext. P1 application dated 3-6-1985 under Rules 11(8) and 16 (1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules') before the Tahsildar for assignment 3.20 acres of land. It is stated in Exhibit P1 that the petitioner is in possession of 12.48 acres of land other than the Government land. The Tahsildar filed a report to the District Collector, which according to the petitioner was favourable to him. As per Exhibit P2 order dated 22-5-1999, the District Collector, Kottayam, rejected the application holding that the petitioner is in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling limit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The petitioner filed Exhibit P5 appeal against that order. The appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, by his order dated 22-9-2000 (Ext. P6) set aside Ext.P2 order passed by the District Collector, holding that the authority to consider the application is the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar was directed

to consider the application. However, it was found in Exhibit P6 order that the family of the petitioner is in possession of 13.05.67 hectares of land. The Tahsildar rejected the application by Exhibit P11 order dated 30-12-2002, holding that he has no jurisdiction to assign land for the `beneficial enjoyment' and that the maximum extent that could be assigned for beneficial enjoyment under Rule 6 (2) is 25 cents. It is also stated in Exhibit P11 order that major portion of the land is rocky.

5. Ext. P11 order passed by the Tahsildar was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in O.P. No. 6146 of 2003, which was disposed of as per Exhibit P12 judgment dated 11-6-2003, holding thus:

"As per Rule 6 (2) the maximum extent prescribed is 25 cents for the assignment of land. However, according to the petitioner, the Government has got ample power to dispense with the extent of land provided under the Rules. It is up to the petitioner to move the Government in this regard. Ext. P11 order cannot be set aside by this court and the remedy, if any, of the petitioner is only to move the Government.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Government as per Exhibit P13 representation dated 20-6- 2003. The Government rejected the application by Exhibit P15 order dated 22-1-2004. In Exhibit P15 order, reference is made to the report of the District Collector dated 14- 1-2004 wherein he reported that the petitioner is in possession of 13.62 hectares of land and if the land in question is assigned