The petitioners, in the crux of their contentions, seek that Government be directed to consider Ext.P3 representation made by them, in which they have requested that the lands in their possession be allowed to be exchanged for rocky lands which were earlier surrendered by their predecessor- in-interest, who was the Original Declarant, as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (KLR act for short).

2. Shri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that though his clients have made a request for exchange of the lands, in effect what they have brought to the notice of the Government is that the rocky lands in question is otherwise unsuitable for any purpose, particularly because it has no road access; and that his clients will be in a position to conduct responsible quarrying therein, subject to all relevant Statutes and Regulations, if they are allowed to relinquish portions of their “Plantation” in lieu of obtaining assignment of the rocky area. He submitted that, in fact, Ext.P3 has been preferred under the provisions of Rule 24 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, read with Section 3 of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act, 1958 and prayed that same be directed to be considered by the competent Authority without any further delay.

3. The afore request of the petitioners was vehemently opposed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri.Jafar Khan, saying that when they approached the competent Authorities earlier, their plea had been rejected through Ext.P9, making it clear that transfer of property in the manner sought for is impermissible under the “KLR Act”. He explained that, since it is conceded by the petitioners that the Original Declarant had surrendered excess land in the past, under the provisions of the “KLR Act”, same became vested in the Government and that the only manner in which it can be dealt with by them is under the provisions of the said Act, and not as per the Kerala Land Assignment Rules or the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act, as has been requested by the petitioners. He submitted that, therefore, Ext.P3 cannot be considered by the competent Authority and that, in any event, even if it is so, it cannot lead to any other decision, other than what has been stated in Ext.P9. He contended that, therefore, if this Court is to direct the competent Authority to consider Ext.P3, it would only be a futile exercise, since it is incompetent from taking a different decision than what has been recorded in Ext.P9.

4. In reply, Shri.Santhosh Mathew - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the afore stand of the official respondents is unfortunate because, as has been already said above, his clients have only sought for exchange of lands in their possession with the rocky area, especially because the latter area cannot be put to any profitable use by the Government – even if they go through the auction mode under the KLR Act – since it does not have a proper motorable road. He submitted that, therefore, the rocky area is now being completely wasted and that his clients' intentions is to use it profitably, so that it will gain income even to the Government, through royalty, which is not something that can be brushed aside by them merely saying that there are no legal provisions under the “KLR Act”. He vehemently argued that once the provisions of the “KLR Act” had come into operation and the land surrendered, then its provisions would not be relevant anymore and it would be only the Land Assignment Rules, read with the Land Relinquishment Act, which would thereafter come into play. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P3 be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the Government in the afore perspective.

5. I have given the afore rival submissions of the parties a great amount of thought.

6. Most of the contentions as afore recorded are in the realm of facts, which cannot be considered by this Court affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of th