ORDER The petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or a writ of a like nature or an order directing respondent 18 to show cause why the orders dated 31-1-1955 and published in the Manipur Gazette dated 16-2-1955 as Notification No. R/4/53-II dated 3-2-1955 be not set aside and for quashing the said orders and for issue of a rule against respondents 1 to 16 restraining them from causing discontinuance of possession from the grazing ground in "Charot Panjin" and of enjoyment of the petitioners easement right of pasturage by ploughing and harrowing the land. 2. The petitioners have alleged that they are kartas of the families of the inhabitants of Ningthoukhong-Kha-Khunou, village No. 44 in Bishenpur Tahsil and they have about 1000 cattle. It has been alleged by the petitioners that they have peaceably enjoyed as an easement of pasturage in Charot Panjin having an area of 14 paries as grazing ground bounded on the north by Hentak Khong Sallam, on the south by Komjaomarin, on the east by Loktak Lake and on the west by cultivable land, as of right without interruption and for over 60 years from generation to generation and in support of this claim, they relied on the judgments in Misc. Case No. 343 of 1947-48 B.T.; Misc. Case No. 239 of 1949-50 B. T. and L.R.A. Case No. 85 of 1949-50 as well as C. C. Revenue Appeal Case No. 43 of 1952 decided on 1-10-1952, vide Exs. 2, 3, 4 and 1. Respondents 1 to 16 are alleged to have been trying to get Charot Panjin, the said village grazing ground settled with them for the last 8 years but no settlement was granted to them by the Revenue Authorities on the ground that it was a recorded grazing ground. Notwithstanding the orders of the Revenue Authorities refusing settlement, respondents 1 to 16 began to encroach upon the disputed land and as such they had to be evicted by the Police force, vide Ex. 2. But very recently by means of the Notification No. R/4/53-II dated 31-1-1955 (the date given in the Gazette is 3-2-1955), the then Chief Commissioner issued orders de-reserving 9 paries out of the village grazing ground and ordered settlement thereof with the local landless people with annual lease, and these 9 paries of land were settled with respondents 1 to 16. But very recently by means of the Notification No. R/4/53-II dated 31-1-1955 (the date given in the Gazette is 3-2-1955), the then Chief Commissioner issued orders de-reserving 9 paries out of the village grazing ground and ordered settlement thereof with the local landless people with annual lease, and these 9 paries of land were settled with respondents 1 to 16. Against the order of de-reservation and settlement of the village grazing ground, an appeal was preferred to Sri P.C. Mathew, I.C.S., the present Honble Chief Commissioner, but this C. C. Revenue Appeal No. 55 of 1955 was rejected on 22-10-1955, vide Ex. 5. The petitioners have come to Court with the allegation that as they had acquired right of pasturage under Ss. 26 and 27, Limitation Act, the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to de-reserve any portion of this village grazing ground and it has further been alleged that if all the records and orders had been brought to the notice of the Government at the time of the consideration of the de-reservation, the Notification No. R/4/53-II could never have been issued. The disputed land is stated to be the only grazing ground available for the village as all the nearby and adjacent lands are all low lying and under water of the Loktak Lake in the rainy season. As the aforesaid orders of respondent 17 constitute an invasion upon the fundamental rights of the petitioners as free citizens of the Union of India and as the said orders are likely to cause utter destitution of the petitioners leading to the starvation of their cattle the present petition has been brought with the prayers already noted above. 3. Respondents 17 and 18 have not contested this petition although on an earlier date the Government Advocate got an adjournment. Respondents 1 to 16 have contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable in law and the petitioners have no right to challenge the orders of the Honble Chief Commissioner under proceedings No. R/4/53-II dated 31-1-1955 and the decisions relied on by the petitioners have no bearing to the de-reservation and settlement of the land with these opposite parties. According to the respondents, de-reservations were legally done by the Government and there has been no invasion of any right to the petitioners as free citizens of India. According to the respondents, de-reservations were legally done by the Government and there has been no invasion of any right to the petitioners as free citizens of India. It has further been contended that as the petitioners have not filed any regular suit as provided in S. 46 of Chapter 3 Part A of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (page 15), they cannot maintain the present petition. Lastly, it is contended that there is another grazing ground of 70 paries towards the west of the land in question containing about (70 paries of land) and the allegation of the petitioners regarding starvation of their cattle are based on mere mis-apprehension. 4. The petitioners have filed an additional affidavit in reply to the written statement of the respondents and it has been contended there that the petitioners have every right to challenge the order of the Honble Chief Commissioner as the same has been passed absolutely without jurisdiction and the allegation that there is another grazing ground to the west of the land in question is false and false to the knowledge of respondents 1 to 16. The allegation that the de-reservation was made after proper enquiry and proceedings by the Government in accordance with the provision of the Assam Land Revenue Manual has also been denied. 5. It has been alleged in para 1 of the petition that the petitioners have got about 1000 cattle for cultivation purposes and they have peaceably enjoyed as an easement of pasturage "Charot Panjin" having an area of 14 paries as grazing ground as of right without interruption and for over 60 years from generation to generation. This allegation has not been denied by the respondents and the Chief Commissioner of Manipur as well as the State of Manipur have not come forward to challenge this allegation of the petitioners by filing an affidavit in rebuttal. In fact, at the time of argument, it was conceded by the learned Advocate for the respondents that there is a grazing ground in Charot Panjin, but his contention is that 9 paries of land in question was duly de-reserved and it was given to respondents 1 to 16 in accordance with law by means of the order dated 26-7-1955, Ex. A/3. The situation of the land in question is stated to be clear from the Map, Ex. A/2. A/3. The situation of the land in question is stated to be clear from the Map, Ex. A/2. The petitioners have produced a number of documents which go to show that the land in question has been a grazing ground for more than 60 years. The judgment in Misc. Case No. 343 of 1947 48 B.T. dated 5-8-1948, vide Ex. 4 shows that the settlement of the land in question was not allowed to some of the contesting respondents on the ground that this land has been a grazing ground for a considerably long time. The exact relevant portion of the order is as follows : "Seen report. There can be no settlement within the grazing reserve." There is another judgment in Misc. Case No. 239 of 1949-50, which also proves the contention of the petitioners and by which some of the contesting respondents who had encroached on a portion of this land were forcibly ejected. The relevant portion of this order is as follows : "No settlement can be allowed in the grazing reserve which is also within the Hentak Khong fishery. The encroachers must give up occupation at once", vide Ex. 3. 6. The judgment in L. R. A. Case No. 85 of 1949-50 dated 6-6-1950, Ex. 2, shows that the respondents did not leave possession and so it was ordered : In spite of the order asking them not to occupy the land they occupied it. Notice was issued to them to vacate but they refused to accept the notice. The S. D. C. again reported to D. C. through the S. D. O. and the officiating D. C. Mr. P. C. Deb, passed order on 9-2-1950 to evict the encroachers. There is no doubt that the land is included in a grazing reserve. No bona fide claim of right is involved in the case. The encroachers who refused to accept notice need not be served with fresh notice of eviction. They should be evicted forthwith under R. 18(2) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation ....... The S. D. C. must see that the eviction is completed within 15 days from today. He will please let me know on what date he proposes to carry out the eviction operation so that police help may be sent. If there are houses on the land, those must be destroyed. The S. D. C. must see that the eviction is completed within 15 days from today. He will please let me know on what date he proposes to carry out the eviction operation so that police help may be sent. If there are houses on the land, those must be destroyed. If there is any crop it must be sold in auction." 7. Lastly, there is a judgment of the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, dated 1-10-1952, Ex. 1, which shows that the encroachers were actually evicted by the Police, but Kumam Ibomacha Singh, respondent 11 of this case and others filed a fresh application before the Chief Commissioner on 16-8-1951 for settlement of the disputed land. Another similar application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner on 18-4-1952, but the Deputy Commissioner did not accept the recommendation of the S. D. C. for settlement of 10 paries of land and the application was, therefore, rejected. The decision of the Deputy Commissioner was confirmed by the Honble Chief Commissioner on the ground that the land in question formed a part of the grazing ground. 8. In spite of the above-mentioned judgments and the admission of the respondents themselves to the effect that the land in question formed part of a grazing ground, somehow the contesting respondents succeeded in securing de-reservation order relating to 9 paries of land, vide Notification No. R/4/53-II dated 3-2-1955 and in Revenue Appeal Case No. 55 of 1955, reliance was placed on this notification, vide Exs. A/1 and 5. In view of this documentary evidence and the evidence of the contesting respondents. I think it fair to conclude that it is established in this case that the land in question has been used as a grazing ground by the petitioners for over 60 years. 9. The only question which remains for determination is whether 9 paries of land out of 14 paries of this grazing ground could be de-reserved under the provision of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, which is applicable to this State. 9. The only question which remains for determination is whether 9 paries of land out of 14 paries of this grazing ground could be de-reserved under the provision of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, which is applicable to this State. The learned Advocate for the respondents has relied on S. 43, Chapter III, Part I of the Regulation, which runs as follows : "Whenever a Deputy Commissioner has reason to believe that any land within his jurisdiction is being held wholly or partially free of assessment and is liable to be assessed under S. 28, he may institute an inquiry, and the person claiming the land shall be bound to prove his title to hold the same wholly or partially free of assessment, as the case may be." Section 28 of the same Chapter is as follows: "All land shall be deemed liable to be assessed to revenue, except- (a) land for the time being exempt from assessment under the express terms of any grant made or confirmed by, or on behalf of, the Crown; (b) land in respect of which a tax is for the time being imposed under S. 47 : Provided that nothing in this section shall - (1) affect the provision of any settlement, grant or lease for the time being in force; (2) authorize the assessment of any land included in the limits of a permanently-settled estate, unless it is shown that it was not included in the permanent settlement; (3) affect any title to hold land revenue-free if the title existed immediately before the commencement of this Regulation and was valid under the law then in force; or (4) authorize the assessment of any land which has been held revenue-free for sixty years continuously unless it is shown that the right so to hold it has ceased to exist. It becomes clear from cl. 4 of the proviso that no action could legally be taken under S. 28 or S. 43 with regard to the land which had been used as a grazing ground by the petitioners and their ancestors for over 60 years and about which the petitioners have acquired a right of pasturage under Ss. 26 and 27, Limitation Act. 10. 4 of the proviso that no action could legally be taken under S. 28 or S. 43 with regard to the land which had been used as a grazing ground by the petitioners and their ancestors for over 60 years and about which the petitioners have acquired a right of pasturage under Ss. 26 and 27, Limitation Act. 10. Under Assam Land and Revenue Regulation also such right of easement has been expressly recognized in part 1 Chapter II S. 6, which runs as follows : No right of any description shall be deemed to have been, or shall be, acquired by any person over any land to which this Chapter applies, except the following : (a) rights of proprietors, landholders and settlement-holders other than landholders, as defined in this Regulation, and other rights acquired in manner provided by this Regulation; (b) rights legally derived from any right mentioned in cl. (a); (c) rights acquired under Ss. 26 and 27, Limitation Act, 1877; (d) rights acquired by any person as tenant under the Rent Law for the time being in force : Provided that nothing in this section shall be held to derogate from the terms of any lease granted by or on behalf of the Crown (State)." Regarding the land in question it is admitted that there was no grant by the State and so it becomes clear that no de-reservation could be made regarding any portion of the land in question under S. 43. If the de-reservation was wholly without jurisdiction the contesting respondents could not acquire any right in the land in question under the notification referred to above. The argument that the present petitioners should have brought a regular suit within one year of this notification under S. 46 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation is also of no force, because S. 46 will have no application to the present case. If the de-reservation had been done according to law then the petitioners might have been deemed to be bound by the provision of S. 46, vide the judgment passed by this Court in Nongthombam Amubi Singh v. Sinam Nadiachand Singh, Civil Misc. Case No. 8 of 1955, D/-29-8-1955 (Manipur) (A). 11. If the de-reservation had been done according to law then the petitioners might have been deemed to be bound by the provision of S. 46, vide the judgment passed by this Court in Nongthombam Amubi Singh v. Sinam Nadiachand Singh, Civil Misc. Case No. 8 of 1955, D/-29-8-1955 (Manipur) (A). 11. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the de-reservation proceedings should be presumed to be legal, but I am unable to accept this argument for there can be no presumption against the expressed provisions of law which are embodied in any statutory enactment or in any rules made under such enactment or even against such principles enunciated in judicial precedents. If the notification in question is against the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation as it obviously is, it cannot be presumed to have been legally issued nor can it be held to be binding on the petitioners. 12. The right of pasturage is a tangible right in immovable property and so an infringement of such right would justify the petitioners coming to this court for relief regarding the alleged infringement of their fundamental rights secured to them by Art. 19(f) of the Constitution of India, vide Rabindra Kumar v. Forest Officer, Government of Manipur, (S) AIR 1955 Manipur 49 , at page 53 (B). 13. The respondents have contended that another grazing ground of 70 paries is available to the petitioners and so the present petition should be rejected. The respondents have produced an extract from the map of village No. 44, vide Ex. A/2, but it does not show the grazing ground of 70 paries near the land in question in any direction. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 26-7-1955 and the order of the Chief Commissioner, Ex. A/1 also do not make any mention of any such pasturage land of 70 paries. The petitioners have alleged in para 5 of their additional affidavit that the allegation that there is a grazing ground towards the west containing 70 paries of land is false and it is false to the knowledge of respondents 1 to 16. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence on behalf of the respondents, I am unable to accept this contention of the respondents as correct and I hold that it has not been proved that any other pasturage land is available for the petitioners. In the absence of any cogent documentary evidence on behalf of the respondents, I am unable to accept this contention of the respondents as correct and I hold that it has not been proved that any other pasturage land is available for the petitioners. 14. The last point which remains to be considered is whether the order dated 22-10-1955 passed in C. C. Revenue Appeal No. 55 of 1955 is liable to be quashed or not. There is no doubt that this order is a judicial order as it seeks to maintain the rights of the respondents within a political community by means of the physical force of the State, vide Chitaleys Constitution of India, Vol. II, page 1926, note No. 162. As a writ of certiorari can be issued in regard to judicial or quasi-judicial orders, a writ can be issued in this case, if it is found that the order in question infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners. I have already shown above that the notification relating to the de-reservation of 9 paries of land of the grazing ground in question was not in accordance with the provision of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation and so the present petitioners could not be bound by it. The order, Ex. A/1 is based on this notification and so the rights of the petitioners cannot be adversely affected by it in any way. The order dated 22-10-1955, Ex. A/1 and the order dated 26-7-1955, Ex. A/3 thus deserve to be quashed and they are hereby quashed. 15. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed as indicated above, and a writ of certiorari will be issued against the respondents as prayed. The petitioners will get Rs. 100/- as costs from respondents 1 to 16. Writ petition allowed.