A writ of certiorari cannot be issued to enforce rights under repealed rules; legal rights must be based on current statutory provisions.

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 07.11.2018 of the 4^th respondent Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (R) Department, whereby Ext.P4 representation dated 14.09.2017 made by the petitioners for assignment of 99.61 Acres of Government land in Survey Nos.229/1, 2 and 3 of Anaviratty Village in Devikulam Taluk in Idukki District stands rejected for the reasons stated therein. The said representation is one filed by the petitioners after Ext.P1 judgment dated 15.11.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2090 of 2004, which was followed by Ext.P2 order dated 29.01.2014 in R.P.No.50 of 2014, arising out of that judgment. Ext.P4 representation was directed to be considered by Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.03.2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.39322 of 2017. The further relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to allot/assign the land in question to third parties; and a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to be allotted and assigned the land as claimed in Ext.P4 representation, in view of Ext.P2 order of this Court dated 29.01.2014 in R.P.No.50 of 2014.

2. This writ petition along with the connected matters were ordered to be posted before the Division Bench dealing with matters relating to land in Munnar region, by the order dated 13.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge.

3. By the order dated 20.03.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, additional respondents 5 to 8 were impleaded. The said respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 24.05.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(d) documents.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for additional respondents 5 to 8.

5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P7 order dated 07.11.2018 of the 4^th respondent, whereby the request made by the petitioners in Ext.P4 representation dated 14.09.2017 for assignment of 99.61 Acres of land in Survey Nos.229/1, 2 and 3 of Anaviratty Village stands rejected for the reasons stated therein.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the provisions contained in the Cardamom Rules of 1935, which deals with assignment of Government lands for cultivation of cardamom, which was passed by the Government of Travancore on 30.09.1935.

7. On the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the provisions contained in the Cardamom Rules of 1935, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for additional respondents 5 to 8 would point out the findings in Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15.11.2013 in W.A.No.2090 of 2004. They would also point out the dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos.6465-66 of 2016 filed by the petitioners herein against Ext.P1 judgment of the Division Bench and Ext.P2 order in R.P.No.50 of 2014, by Ext.R5(c) order dated31.08.2017 of the Apex Court.

8. On the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for additional respondents 5 to 8, we notice that the issues raised before the Division Bench and considered in Ext.P1 judgment dated 15.11.2013 in W.A.No.2090 of 2004 are as follows;

“(i) Whether, despite coming into force of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder, the Cardamom Rules of 1935 will survive and the effect of Section 9(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.

(ii) Whether any steps had been taken in terms of the Cardamom Rules of 1935 and if so, whether it resulted in