Point of Law : The provisions of law are so clear regarding the assignment of land for the persons prescribed under section 96 of Act, 1963 and Rules, 1970. It is also clear that the reservation of land for public purposes is different from the assignment of land to the deserving persons in contemplation of law.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

This writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34034 of 2014, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29th July, 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Subject issue relates to earmarking of land vested in the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 for public purpose as per section 96 of Act 1963. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows;

2. Appellant is the son of one late Padikkala Anthappan. Late Anthappan filed a Ceiling Return under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, hereinafter called, “Act, 1963”. The land Board, as per an order dated 4.5.1977, which was later revised in the year 1978, directed Anthappan to surrender 35.67.081 Acres of land. As per document dated 11.10.1961 of Sub Registry, Mundoor, late Anthappan had gifted some properties in favour of the appellant. Since the appellant was a minor at that time, his properties were also included in the Ceiling case of Anthappan.

3. According to the appellant, he has no grievance regarding the extent of land ordered to be surrendered, which was duly complied with by late Anthappan. But the grievance highlighted in the writ petition is that by the action of the Land Board/ District Collector, assigning an extent of 1.60 Acres of land from the surrendered land, for putting up Police quarters is bad and illegal. Besides, putting up of walls completely preventing the appellant from making use of his 65 cents of land, which is now in a land locked position and therefore, the following reliefs were sought for in the writ petition:

(i) Call for the records leading to the order passed by the Police Department by G.O.(Rt.) No.747/1987 dated 14.5.1987 and Order No.B5 46329/87 dated 21.7.1987 of District Collector, Thrissur, and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the same.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent, District Collector, Thrissur, to produce order, G.O.(Rt.) No.747/1987 dated 14.5.1987 and Order No.B5 46329/87 dated 21.7.1987.

(iii. Declare that the action of the District Collector in assigning the land for Police department is contrary to the provisions under section 96(1) (ii)(a) of the Land Reforms Act and hence ab initio void.

(iv). Pass such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v). Award costs.

4. The learned Single Judge, after taking into account the pros and cons of the matter, and interpreting the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act, held that the Government have power under section 96(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to reserve any land for public purpose; that the residuary power conferred on the Government under section 96(1A) would enable the Government to allot land citing public purpose; that the allotment of land, in the case on hand, appears to be for the Police Department for the construction of the Police quarters and other structures and therefore, it cannot be questioned on the ground that it lacks public purpose; that when the Government interest itself is protected, that itself becomes a public purpose; that the appellant cannot question the allotment of land to the Police quarters, apart from the merit of the matter. That apart it was held that in regard to the right of the appellant to question the allotment based on his claim under section 85(8) of Act, 1963, has attained finality as per Exhibit P5 judgment of this Court in CRP No.112 of 2011 dated 17th October, 2014 and therefore, from that moment, the appellant's right is foreclosed to challenge the allotment of the land. That apart it was held that the appellant's right to question the allotment was available till his claim under section 85(8) is decided and once the decision is taken and rejected, the appellant no longe