The main legal point established in the judgment is that the land gifted for the housing colony could not be exchanged for another land and ordered the implementation of the housing scheme on the purchased land.

V.K. Bali, C.J.

We propose by this order to dispose of three connected matters wherein common questions of law and facts are involved. The bare minimum facts have, however, been extracted from W.P.(C).No.6459 of 2005 (Joy Thomas & Another V. State of Kerala & Others) which has been filed by way of a public interest litigation, as it is in this case that the pleadings are complete in all regards.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are residents of Akalakunnam Grama Panchayat and are vitally interested in the welfare of the residents of the Panchayat. The writ has been preferred for the benefit of the people for whom land has been set apart for constructing houses free of cost. The writ has thus been filed for the benefit of the residents of Akalakunnam Grama Panchayat and for those people who have been selected for being given free houses under the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme”. In the year 1993 as an act of altruism, Dr. Thomas George, the 5th respondent, gifted the land measuring 2.75 acres in Sy.No.222/3 and 222/7 of Block 45 f Akalakunnam Village, Kottayam District to the Kerala State Housing Board, the second respondent herein by virtue of a registered gift deed. A copy of the said gift deed dated 10.1.1994 has been placed on record as Ext.P1. The gift deed was made for a specific purpose, i.e. the schedule properties would be utilized for constructing houses for the poor and homeless and named as “Sri. M.T. George Maaillady Memorial Housing Complex” under the “Rajeev Ten Laksh House Construction Scheme”. Even though Ext.P1 was styled as a gift deed, it is in effect a trust, created by the 5th respondent for the benefit of the poor and the homeless and the second respondent was the trustee. Prior to the creation/execution of Ext.P1 the Grama Panchayat, the third respondent herein, had found after inspection that the property covered by Ext.P1 was ideally suited for constructing about 200 houses for the homeless and that had sufficient trees, water, light, road and other basic amenities. A resolution was in fact moved by the third respondent Panchayat on 27.7.1993 resolving to initiate appropriate steps for obtaining the property for constructing houses for the homeless agriculturists. By letter dated 2.11.1993 the third respondent requested the second respondent to take immediate steps for taking over the property. The second respondent, after inspecting the property that was proposed to be given in trust, agreed to abide by the condition required by the 5th respondent that the housing complex should be named as “Sri. M.T. George Maillady Memorial Housing Complex”. Pursuant to execution of Ext.P1, possession of the property was handed over to the second respondent. Anticipating immediate construction of houses, the local anxiously waited, the homeless eagerly expected their dream to turn into a reality. Little did they realize that their hopes would be washed away due to misfeasance in public offices of second and third respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent immediately after taking possession cut and removed the rubber trees and the coconut trees standing on the property covered by Ext.P1 for a total amount of Rs.56,000/-. The trees were cut and removed apparently with the intention of constructing the houses immediately. Thereafter the Panchayat invited applications and is even known to have selected 200 homeless families to be allotted free houses under the Scheme. An amount of Rs.7 lakhs was also deposited by the Panchayat with the Housing Board. Unfortunately, however, none of the houses under the Scheme has been constructed and the second respondent is retaining the amount of Rs.7 lakhs without constructing the houses and the “Rajeev 10 Lakh House Construction Scheme” still remains a paper scheme. A couple of years ago P.T. Thomas, the 4th respondent herein, a businessman, purchased the property adjacent to the property covered by Ext.P1 and set up a