JUDGMENT The 387 petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Honble the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, for a writ of certiorari or a writ of like nature or an order cancelling the Government decision not to renew the leases of the land in dispute for the year 1956-57 in favour of the petitioners and which was published in the Official Gazette and of which notices were also served on the petitioners. 2 The land in dispute is waste land and forms part of the Lamphelpat in the vicinity of Imphal. It consists of about 300 paris (750 acres). There is a long history as to how this land came to be leased out for cultivation, and it will suffice to state those facts only which are material for the understanding of the case. 3 It appears that this area was thrown open to cultivation in 1943 by the then President of the Manipur State Darbar, in furtherance of the grow-more-food campaign. In 1946 the succeeding President Mr. Pearson decided that temporary pattas of blocks of one Pari each should be granted to those who were eligible and laid down certain conditions, one of which was that the pattas will be temporary for a period of 5 years in the first instance and after the expiry of that period the grant shall be confirmed provided it had not by then become apparent that the grazing interests had thereby suffered. Mr. Pearson however in that order (Ex. 1) used the word encroachers to describe those who were in possession, most probably because the land had been brought under cultivation without specific permission and without obtaining pattas for the same. A copy of the grow-more food bulletin No. 54 issued by the Assam Government has been filed, and it appears from the last para that if any one wanted land he had to approach the District Officer. The Darbar Resolution No. 20G(1) dated 17-7-46 however makes a mention that the cultivation of this land was allowed when Mr. Lydall was the President as a part of the grow-more-food campaign, though there was no record of it. It is however not necessary to go into the merits of this as nothing turns on it, as will become apparent later. Lydall was the President as a part of the grow-more-food campaign, though there was no record of it. It is however not necessary to go into the merits of this as nothing turns on it, as will become apparent later. 4 The Darbar also accepted the proposal of the President to lease out this land temporarily, but H. H. the Maharaja who then exercised the right of veto under Rule 6 of the Rules for the Management of the State of Manipur, raised Appellant strong objection, one of the grounds being that from early days cultivation in Lamphelpat had been strictly prohibited as it would exercise evil effects on the Ruling Prince and the well-being of the country as a whole. Since the Darbar was not willing the tussle went on and ultimately the matter was referred to the Agent to the Government of India. As a result of further discussions H. H. the Maharaja ultimately allowed that if the Council wanted the land could be let out for a year and no more. According the Council by its Resolution dated 4-5-48 (in Ext-2) permitted leases for one year to expire after the next harvest. 5 But what appears to have happened in fact after that was that these lessees continued in possession, most probably some others also came in, and pattas were also granted in some years, the last annual patta being for the year 1954-55. Only one copy of this last patta has been filed (Ex-7) and it is in favour of petitioner No. 1. Clause 3 of this patta runs thus: "3. You shall have no right or title in the scheduled lands beyond the said period of one year; but unless you or Government shall on or before the Vasant Panchami day of 1955 i. e. 28-1-55 serve the other party with a written notice to the effect that a renewal of the lease is not desired in respect of all or any of the schedule lands this lease shall be renewed for another year on such land revenue as Government may determine." 6 Two notices were given to the petitioner one dated 12-1-56 and the other dated 11-2-56. the first was to the effect that the lease will not be renewed after 31-3-55 and the land should be vacated on receipt of the notice. the first was to the effect that the lease will not be renewed after 31-3-55 and the land should be vacated on receipt of the notice. It is not unlikely that the year 55 is a clerical mistake for 56. The second notice said that in accordance with clause 3 of the annual lease the Government did not intend to renew the lease any longer, and the present lease will be terminated on 15-2-56 and no lease holder will be entitled to enter thereon thereafter. Only one copy of each has been tiled and they are Exs-9 and 10. The notice published in the Gazette for general information was also to the same effect as the second notice and further stated that the Government proposed to utilise the land for certain essential public purposes and any person unauthorisedly entering the land will be liable to be dealt with as a trespasser. 7 It was alleged by the petitioners that they have been in possession since 1943. They therefore contend that they have held the land settled with them for more than 10 years and have been paying land revenue with the result that they have acquired the status of land holders by virtue of section 8(1) (b) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886, and are entitled to periodic leases according to the provisions of that Regulation. The order cancelling the settlement is thus illegal and affects their fundamental rights, as it would, if allowed to stand, deprive them of their property. 8 On behalf of the respondent it was denied that the petitioners were in possession from 1943. According to respondent the order of 1943 if any and the order of 1946 relied upon by the petitioners were of no avail as they were not approved by His Highness, and possession of the villagers including the petitioners if any before the period of lease granted as per resolution dated 4-5-48 was as trespassers. It was denied that all the petitioners were in possession since 1943 and were paying land revenue every year. Possession after the expiry of the lease of one year granted under the resolution of 1948 and until the grant of a fresh lease for one year in 1952 was also as trespassers or encroachers. It was denied that all the petitioners were in possession since 1943 and were paying land revenue every year. Possession after the expiry of the lease of one year granted under the resolution of 1948 and until the grant of a fresh lease for one year in 1952 was also as trespassers or encroachers. In 1952 the lease was granted by drawing lots from amongst bona fide landless cultivators according to the policy of the Govt. at the rate of 3 sangams per head. Later the leases of 102 lessees which include 94 of the present petitioners were cancelled by the Govt. by notice dated 4-8-55 as some had transferred their holdings to others, some had got the settlement by fraud by giving false names and addresses, some were found to be not actual tillers etc, and they acquiesced in the action taken. As regards the others Govt. decided not to renew the leases as the land was required for the public purpose of starting a farm combining agriculture and animal husbandry, and accordingly notices ware served on them on 11-2-56 intimating that their annual leases would be terminated by the 16th February, 1956 (Basant Panchmi day) after which they would not be entitled to enter upon the land and would be dealt with as encroachers. 9 It was further contended on behalf of the respondent that since the conditions laid down in Section 8 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation were not fulfilled in the case of petitioners they did not and could not acquire the status of landholders and have no rights under Section 9 of the said Regulation. In any case they had relinquished their rights of being land-holders, if any, by accepting the annual lease in 1952, and therefore ceased to be landholders. The petitioners were thus not entitled to claim the renewal of the lease. The question whether an annual lease should or should not be renewed was a question entirely within the discretion of the Executive, and Article 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked for the purpose. Thus there was no invasion of any right of the petitioners and they were entitled to no relief. It was also alleged that the petition was bad for multifariousness. 10 It will be thus clear that the parties are not agreed on all the facts. Thus there was no invasion of any right of the petitioners and they were entitled to no relief. It was also alleged that the petition was bad for multifariousness. 10 It will be thus clear that the parties are not agreed on all the facts. The petitioners have also not filed all the pattas, receipts etc It is thus not possible to say, which of them are in possession, from what time and for what period they have paid land revenue. For the same reason it cannot be ascertained which of them were granted annual pattas and in which years. It may also be noticed here that the pattas granted in 1947 and 1952 (Exts-5 and 6) did not have any clause like clause No. 3 in the patta of 1954-55. The lease by the patta of 1947 was for the period from January to December, 1948, while that by the patta of 1952 was made valid for one year ending with 31-3-53. Thus it is not possible to ascertain the exact particulars of the case of each petitioner, but as will be presently seen, in the view that I take, it is not necessary to enter into these details and an examination of the questions involved may proceed on the assumption that the facts alleged by the petitioners are correct and common to all the petitioners. 11 The first question that would then arise for determination would be whether they have the status of land-holders. It is necessary to examine Sections 8 and 9 besides Section 3(g) of the Regulation for that purpose. They run thus: "3 (g) land-holder means any person deemed to have acquired the status of a land-holder under Section 8". 11 The first question that would then arise for determination would be whether they have the status of land-holders. It is necessary to examine Sections 8 and 9 besides Section 3(g) of the Regulation for that purpose. They run thus: "3 (g) land-holder means any person deemed to have acquired the status of a land-holder under Section 8". "8 (1) (a) Any person who has, before the commencement of this Regulation, held immediately under the Crown for ten years continuously any land not included either in a permanently-settled estate or in a revenue-free estate, and who has during that period paid to the Crown the revenue due thereon, or held the same under an express exemption from revenue, and (b) except as provided by Section 15, any parson who has whether before or after the commencement of this Regulation, acquired any such land under a lease granted by or on behalf of the Crown, the term of which is not less than ten years, shall be deemed to have acquired the status of a land-holder in respect of the land- (2) When land held by one person has come immediately by transfer or succession to he held by another, the holding shall, for the purpose of sub-Section (1), clause (a), be deemed to have been continuous, and the latter person may, in reckoning the length of his holding, add the holding of the former to his own. (3) When any revenue has paid in respect of land by any person holding the land under another, that revenue shall, for the purposes of the said clause, be deemed to have been paid by the latter person. 9. A land holder shall have a permanent, heritable and transferable right or use and occupancy in his land, subject to (a) the payment of all revenue, taxes, cesses and rates from time to time legally assessed or imposed in respect of the land; (b) the reservation in favour of the Crown of all quarries and of all mines, mineral oils and of all buried treasure, with full liberty to search for and work the same, paying to the land-holder only compensation for the surface damage as estimated by the Deputy Commissioner ; and (c) the special conditions of any engagement into which the land-holder may have entered with Crown. 12 The Assam Land and Revenue Manual which includes the Regulation and the Rules framed under it was first introduced in Manipur State in 1947 (from 15-6-1947). Section 8(1) (a) is therefore of no avail to the petitioners even if "commencement" in that sub-section is read as meaning "commencement in Manipur State". In fact it is also not the petitioners case that they acquired the status of land holders under Section 8 (1) (a)- They claim it on the basis of Section 8(1) (b), and it was urged by their learned counsel that the condition in that clause, namely, "under Appellant lease granted by or on behalf of the Crown, the term of which is not less than 10 years" does not mean that there should be one lease with a term of at least 10 years, but that a claimant could add up the terms of several continuous leases for the purpose of that term of ten years. I find it not possible to agree on the express language used in clause (b). "A lease" cannot mean two or more leases and the term cannot mean two or more terms. If the intention of the framers of the Regulation was as the learned counsel would have us hold, then there was nothing to prevent them from using such language; which would have made it clear, such as by saying "under a lease or leases granted by or on behalf of the Crown, the term or the total of terms of which is not less than ten years". 13 Learned counsel tried to draw support to his argument from the definition of "periodic lease" given in Rule 1(d) framed under the Regulation and contained in Part II of the Manual. Rule 1 (d) runs thus: "(d) A periodic lease, except in the case of Town land, means a lease granted for a period longer than one year and in the case of town land a lease for a period longer than three years. Subject to and so far as is consistent with any restrictions, conditions and limitations contained therein, it conveys to the lessee the rights of a landholder as defined in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation". Subject to and so far as is consistent with any restrictions, conditions and limitations contained therein, it conveys to the lessee the rights of a landholder as defined in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation". 14 Counsel contended that if a lease for more than one year could give the lessee the rights of a land-holder under Rule 1 (d) then there was no sense in prescribing under Section 8(1) (b) a period of ten years, and therefore it could not mean that the period of ten years must be by one lease. The Rules in question were made subject to there being nothing repugnant in the subject or context. Again it is well settled that if reconciliation between a section and a rule made under the Act is not possible then the rule which is a subordinate provision must give way, (Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes 10th Edition, page 51). But this is not all. It appears to me that Rule 53 clarifies the whole position. That Rule is reproduced below:- "53. Settlement shall be made by granting annual or periodic leases. Periodic leases shall ordinarily run upto the terminal year of the coming assessment. Subject to the provisions of Rules 23 and 27 a person who has already acquired the status of land-holder in respect of any land shall be entitled to receive a periodic lease. When land has been taken up for dwelling house or is under permanent cultivation a periodic lease should ordinarily be granted. 15 It will thus be clear from Rule 53 that a periodic lease is intended for a person who has already acquired the status of a landholder, and therefore it was necessary to say in the definition of periodic lease that it conveys to the lessee the rights of a land-holder, otherwise a person who was already a land-holder might lose that status on account of the provisions of Section 8, if on a re-settlement the period of lease happens to be for a term of less than 10 years. He would then lose the right to have his lease renewed or the settlement offered to him. He would then lose the right to have his lease renewed or the settlement offered to him. It thus appears to be plain that for acquiring the status of a land-holder for the first time the lease will have to be for 10 years under Section 8(1) (b) and once those rights have been acquired then they will not be lost even if the resettlement is for a shorter period. It is also significant that the petitioners themselves claim the rights of a land-holder under Section 8 (1) (b). 16 In any case, that is, even if it is found that even a first lease of more than one year would give the rights of a land-holder, the petitioners cannot claim that benefit as in their case no lease for a period of more than a year has been proved. The decision of 1946 that leases be given for five years was only a proposal and no pattas were, issued to the petitioners in accordance with that decision. Rather that decision was set aside and leases for a year only were given in 1948. Again whatever rights they might have had were or will be deemed to have been renounced by their acceptance of annual leases thereafter and specially in view of the terms on which they accepted the last lease of 1954-55. It will thus be clear that in no case can the petitioners claim the rights of land-holders and the Government was therefore not bound to renew the annual leases. In view of this it is not necessary to go into the various rulings cited by both parties. 17 An attempt was made by the learned Government Advocate to show that the Rules in Part II of the Manual did not apply to Manipur State, as the Govt. of India had extended only the Regulation to Manipur State by their notification of 1952, and the Chief Commissioner had not framed any rules under the Regulation. As already stated elsewhere the Manual which includes the Rules was applied in 1947 to Manipur State and the effect of Section 5 of the Manipur (Administration) Order, 1949 made under the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act would be to continue it until repealed or amended. The extension order of the Govt. of India cannot in the circumstances have the effect of repealing the Rules. The extension order of the Govt. of India cannot in the circumstances have the effect of repealing the Rules. In fact those rules are being followed even now and must be deemed to have been adopted by the Govt. of Manipur State even-after the order of extension by the Govt. of India. It was also admitted in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent that the Manual (i. e., the Rules also) applies to this State. Government have also printed the Regulation recently and in it there are references to Rules in Part II (Note under Section 12 for example). It is therefore too late in the day now to say that, the Rules have no application. In any case in the view that I have taken the result is the same. 18 Thus the petitioners can at best be said to be annual lessees and the last lease in their favour was for 1954-55. Under Section 11 of the Regulation such a holder does not have any rights in excess of those expressed in his settlement lease. Clause 3 of the Patta (Ex-7) also says that the lessee will have no right title in the land beyond the said period of one year, with the addition that in the absence of nonrenewal notice the lease shall be renewed for another year on such land revenue as Govt. may determine. In fact it was frankly admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they can have no case unless it is found that they are land-holders. 19 It is the case of neither party that such a notice of non-renewal was given before 15-2-55. So the lease was renewed for 55-56 and the notices given by the Government would terminate that lease. The petitioners have therefore no right to compel the Govt. to lease out the land to them for 1956-57. Thus there was no denial of their rights or title and it cannot be said that their property has been taken away illegally. There is thus no infringement of any fundamental rights. The matter of renewal of annual leases is purely a matter within the discretion of the executive authority and a writ under Art. 226 will not lie directing that discretion to be exercised one way or the either: Md. Masraf Ali v. D. C. Nowgong: AIR 1951 Assam 44 (A). There is thus no infringement of any fundamental rights. The matter of renewal of annual leases is purely a matter within the discretion of the executive authority and a writ under Art. 226 will not lie directing that discretion to be exercised one way or the either: Md. Masraf Ali v. D. C. Nowgong: AIR 1951 Assam 44 (A). In such cases Courts have no power to investigate the grounds or the reasonableness of the decision arrived at in the exercise of that discretion except when mala fides are clearly proved: Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani AIR 1950 S. C. 222 (B). In the present case there is no such allegation and as the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents shows the decision for non-renewal was taken as the land is required for a public purpose. 20 It may be that the Govt. may be able to find another land for that purpose and the case of petitioners may be deserving of sympathy as it appears to be. These persons reclaimed the land and have been in possession for so many years, and it would clearly be a loss and hardship to them if they are deprived of it, specially when they must have cultivated it also this year. It may also not be desirable that so many persons should be thrown out of the lands which they must have by now grown to think as their own, and therefore very strong reasons alone should lead to the decision to to stop further leasing, but they are matters for the Govt. who always have the power to reconsider and revise their decisions if they so like in such matters, but Courts are helpless to give relief on those grounds. They can at the most express their opinion or tender their advice, but must leave it at that. 21 I observe that in the notice dated 11-2-56 it was stated that the lease will be terminated on 16-2-56 Sri Panchami Day and no lease holder will be entitled to enter into the land thereafter and in the notice published in the Gazette, it was added that any person entering on the land is liable to be dealt with as a trespasser. This may not be quite correct in view of the fact that under the Regulation "agricultural year" commences from the 1st April, unless the Govt. This may not be quite correct in view of the fact that under the Regulation "agricultural year" commences from the 1st April, unless the Govt. notify any other date. I was not shown any such notification. I was however told that according to custom in Manipur State the ceremony of first ploughing is done on the Vasant Panchami day and therefore the year must commence at least on that day. That means the new lessee or unwilling owner must get possession on that day. The point is not free from difficulty and I need not express any opinion because the notices in question had only to indicate and inform that the Govt. did not desire to renew the leases any more and that object has been served by the notices. No notice is necessary to terminate a lease for a fixed period, as it comes to an end by afflux of time. That question can only be of interest when ejectment proceedings are taken, and as a matter of fact the petitioners can have no complaint on that score as they are in possession even after 31-3-56. Since that point is not material in this case I need not also go into the question whether the petitioners will be entitled to the notice under Rule 18(3) before they can be ejected. I have referred to all this because it appears that either there is not a well settled procedure in the matter or the procedure required by the Rules is not understood with the result that it is not followed. 22 In view of the findings reached it is not necessary to go into the question of misjoinder of plaintiffs. In my opinion Rule 1 of Order 1 C. P. C is wide enough to permit such a joinder at least in cases under Art. 226. Note 44 at page 1635 in Chitaleys Constitution 1st Edition also supports the view. 23 The result is that the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.