JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2026 The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext. P8 order and the consequential Ext.P9 demand notice.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, as is evident from Ext.P1, the land in question is Kuthakapattam property and that the petitioner had already approached the authorities for assignment of the said land. However, that application was rejected by Ext.P4 order stating that the property, being puramboke land belonging to the National Highway, could not be assigned. It was also observed that the petitioner had only leasehold rights over the property and that it could not be assigned to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application was rejected. However, in the absence of the petitioner having approached the authorities for renewal of the lease, the lease rent was assessed by the District Collector as per the Ext. P8 order under the provisions of the Rules for Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Area , 1995 (in short ‘the Rules 1995’).

3. The primary challenge raised in the writ petitio