ORDER The petitioner, the Pureiromba Deity of Lamlai village through its Shebait Angom Atomchouba Singh has filed this application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of acquisition of a portion of the land belonging to the said deity in Lamlai village. 2. The petitioners case is as follows : The land under Dag No. 10/11 (old) which is the same as Dag No. 38 (new) measuring about 3 bighas in Lamlai village, Khabam Pana, Imphal East Tahsil in which the temple of the Deity Lainingthou Pureiromba is situated, is a revenue-free land and it is entered under the name of Lai Ibungo Pureiromba Bannya Devata in the record-of-rights of the said land maintained in the Revenue Department of the Manipur Administration based on the Chitha and the field map. The said land is held sacred by the people of Angom clan, who worshipped the said deity and who considered the deity as the progenitor of the clan. Every year Chaklon Katpa ceremony of the said deity is performed by the people of Angom Sagei and the Maharajah of Manipur and the villagers assembled with their offerings in the said land and Laiharaoba of the said deity was also performed annually in the said land. The land has been in the exclusive possession of the deity for the performance of the said ceremonies from time immemorial as of right and enjoyed peacefully and without any interruption and the right and title of the deity to the said land has thus been perfected. Any encroachment or violation of the said land was considered a sacrilege and would hurt the religious susceptibilities of the people of Angom clan and the villagers of Lamlai and the cluster of bamboos in the said land should not be cut and no earth from any portion of the said land can be taken out. It is the belief, which is firmly rooted that if anything is done in violation of the said custom evil consequences will follow, to the Maharajah and the people of Manipur. 3. In the middle of 1957, the Chairman of the Social Welfare Committee, Manipur is said to have made an application for 1 bigha measuring 235 ft. x 45 ft. 3. In the middle of 1957, the Chairman of the Social Welfare Committee, Manipur is said to have made an application for 1 bigha measuring 235 ft. x 45 ft. out of the said land and the S. D. C. of Imphal East Tahsil is said to have made a report in support of it and the Manipur Administration purported to grant settlement of the said land in January 1958, treating the land as if it was Khas Government land. 4. Such settlement amounts to an acquisition of such a piece of land belonging to the deity. But no proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were taken by the respondent. Such illegal acquisition of property is an invasion of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 25, 26 and 19(f) (5) of the Constitution. 5. The petitioners application to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration of the matter in March, 1958 and his subsequent application to the Chief Commissioner did not bring forth any result. Even the application of the petitioner for copies of the orders passed by the Administration was rejected. 6. Hence the action of respondents was in breach of the law and without jurisdiction and in contravention of their duties and obligations as public officers and must be declared a nullity as far as the petitioner is concerned. 7. In support of the petitioners case, he has produced the Dag Chitha prepared in 1923-24 in accordance with Rules 56 and 62 of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land Revenue Manual Vol. 1 as Document 2. Document 2 shows that the name of the pattadar was given as Lai Ibungo Pureiromba Banyadevta and in column 11, the land was described as Lairou, which was admitted by the parties to mean the land of the deity. The petitioner also produced document No. 1 given by the Pandit Achouba, meaning the senior Pandit of the Maharajah of Manipur in which he has stated that this deity Lainingthou Pureiromba had been set up in the village of Lamlai more than 2000 years ago at the time of the colonization of Chakpa when the evacuees returned after the invasion of Manipur by the Chinese led by the brother of Sawang Nongphu and that the place of the above deity was the same as the present. Though such a statement is not proof of the facts stated therein, it is some evidence of the belief of the people in the tradition relating to this deity. Document No. 3 was a memo, from the same Pandit to the Chief Commissioner of Manipur, in which he stated that the deity in question was a powerful Umanglai deity, that the land was kept reserved for the said deity by the Government from time immemorial, that the bamboo clusters in the said land should not be cut according to the custom, that no earth from the land can be taken out for performance other than those connected with the deity and if the land was interfered with then evil consequences will follow to the Maharajah and people of Manipur according to the firmly rooted belief of the villagers. 8. The respondents who are the Chief Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the S.D.C., I. E. T. of Manipur, opposed the writ application. They state that in the land records pertaining to the land in question maintained by the Revenue Department of the Government, there is no entry of any person named as Shebait of the said deity and hence the application filed by the deity through the alleged Shebait Angom Atomchouba Singh is incompetent. They admit that the entry in the land record disclosed that the piece of Government reserve land measuring 3 bighas is found recorded in the name of the deity with the remark that it was Lai-rou, but the said entry did not indicate that the land was granted absolutely to the said deity and that the deity had absolute right over it. They denied that the title of the deity has ripened by adverse possession. They contend that such entry did not debar the Government from resumption of the area for public purposes by construction of building for the social welfare activities concerning the Lamlai village. The Government needed a piece of land measuring 1 bigha for the construction of the said building and the report submitted by the S. D. C., I. E. T. on the basis of the enquiry held by the Circle Amin showed that the villagers had no objection to the utilization of the said land. For such resumption, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are necessary and no fundamental right of the petitioner is affected. For such resumption, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are necessary and no fundamental right of the petitioner is affected. They denied that the action of the Government interfered with the religious purposes connected with the said deity or the religious susceptibilities of any villager or affected the right of the Angom clan or the villagers of Lamlai basti. 9. The respondents have produced copies of certain documents, which they refused to give to the petitioner on his application on the ground that they were official correspondence and reports made between officials and departments of the Government. These documents were intended to show the circumstances under which the land in question was granted to the Social Welfare Board. They are annexures 1 to 5. Annexure-4 shows that the application by the Chairman of the Manipur Social Welfare Advisory Board for a piece of land in Lamlai village was made on 11-12-57 to the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur for construction of a building for the welfare extension project. The application itself is not produced but annexure-4 shows that on 31-1-58, the Manipur Administration wrote back to the Chairman of the Board that the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, has been pleased to sanction allotment of a plot of land at Lamlai village as described therein free of premium and land revenue. The description of the land showed that it was the northern portion of the site on which this Pureiromba deity was situated, and that it measured 45, by 235. There is nothing to show that before the land was so allotted, any enquiry was made about the right or claim of any party in respect of the said land. On 2-2-58, the Deputy Commissioner wrote the memo, (annexure-3) to the S. D. C., I. E. T. enclosing copy of annexure-4 and directing the S. D. C. to arrange to hand over possession of the said plot to the Chairman. This was sent by the S. D. C. to the Circle Amin for handing over possession to the Chairman of the Lamlai centre of the Board. Annexure-1 is the report dated 3-3-58 sent by the said Circle Amin to the S. D. C. In this report the Circle Amin has stated that the plot belonged to the Lai Ibungo Pureiromba Bannya Devta, that out of 3 Bighas under Dag No. 38 an area of 4K. and 5 L. measuring 275 ft. x 45 ft. Annexure-1 is the report dated 3-3-58 sent by the said Circle Amin to the S. D. C. In this report the Circle Amin has stated that the plot belonged to the Lai Ibungo Pureiromba Bannya Devta, that out of 3 Bighas under Dag No. 38 an area of 4K. and 5 L. measuring 275 ft. x 45 ft. has been handed over to the Social Welfare Board and the remainder measuring 2 B. 15 L. has been kept for the deity under the old Dag. Annexure-II attached to annexure-1 gives the details of the original land of the deity as 3 bighas and it is mentioned as Lai-rou, ingkhol, old house and the balance after handing over 4 K. and 5 L. to the Social Welfare Board is also mentioned therein. Annexure-5 is the formal application by the local Chairman of the Social Welfare Board for delivery of possession on 3-3-58 and also acknowledgment of the said Chairman for having received delivery of possession. Thus, though annexure-4 shows that land measuring 45 ft. by 235 ft. was allotted, Annexures 1, 2 and 5 showed that the plot actually handed over measured 45 ft. by 275 ft. They also showed that the said plot belonged to the deity. 10. Now the above documents produced for the respondents do not support their statement in paragraph 3 of the counter-statement that an enquiry was caused to be made through the officials of the Revenue Dept. about the availability of such a piece of land or that a report was submitted to respondents 1 and 2 by Sri Thagoi Singh, in charge of the S. D. C., I. E. T. on the basis of the enquiry held by the Circle Amin concerned that the villagers of Lamlai had no objection to the utilisation of the piece of land for such purposes. If any such enquiry was ordered, the order would have been produced by the respondents. If any report was sent by Sri Thagoi Singh after making any such enquiry stating that the villagers had no objection to the utilisation of the piece of land for such purposes, then the report must be on record. But no such report has been produced. In any case, the enquiry is not to be made from the villagers. If any report was sent by Sri Thagoi Singh after making any such enquiry stating that the villagers had no objection to the utilisation of the piece of land for such purposes, then the report must be on record. But no such report has been produced. In any case, the enquiry is not to be made from the villagers. It is admittedly a land in the possession of the deity and if any enquiry is to be made, it is of the Shebait or any other person in charge of the properties of the deity. It is not the case of the respondents that any such enquiry was made before allotting this land in the possession of the deity and handing it over to the local Chairman of the Board. It was however admitted in paragraph 8 of the counter-statement that when the petitioner made representations to respondent 2 and Pandit Achouba made representations evidenced by document No. 3 to respondent No. 1, they did not consider the said representations as the construction of the building had already been started on the allotted site. 11. It is now clear from the documents produced by the petitioner and the respondents that Dag No. 38 measuring 3 Bighas was in the possession of the deity at the time when a portion of it was allotted by the Chief Commissioner to the Chairman of the Social Welfare Board and possession handed over to him. Annexure-1 produced by the respondents itself shows that possession was with the deity. Actually, the allotted land is part of the site on which the temple of the deity stands. Thus, when it was allotted by respondent 1 under annexure-4 to the Social Welfare Board, it was not a waste land in the khas possession of the Government. Possession was taken of land belonging to and in the actual possession of the deity. Petitioners case that it was revenue-free land in the possession of the deity has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-statement. What they deny is the statement of the petitioner that the deity has been in possession as of right and adversely and without interruption for more than two thousand years and has perfected title by adverse possession. But we are not concerned in this case with the question whether the deity has perfected title to the 3 Bighas of land by adverse possession. But we are not concerned in this case with the question whether the deity has perfected title to the 3 Bighas of land by adverse possession. We are only concerned with the question whether the deity was in possession of the land revenue free on the day of allotment to the Chairman of the Board and on the day of dispossession. This fact has not been denied at all by the respondents and they cannot deny it in the face of the report annexure-1, which clearly admits that the three Bighas belonged to the deity and in the face of the Dag Chitha, (Document No. 2). 12. Document No. 2 produced by the petitioner showed beyond any doubt that when the Dag Chitha was prepared in 1923-24 the said land was Lai-rou or land of the deity, that the possession of the land by the deity had been old possession even then and not new possession. Now this Dag Chitha had been prepared in accordance with Rules 56, 60 and 62, Part II Ch. I, S. III of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land Revenue Manual - Vol. I, which was in force in Manipur long before the integration of the State with the Indian Union. Though the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation was formally made applicable to Manipur only on 15-6-1947 by the Maharaja, the same principles were being followed long before and Dag Chithas were being prepared. Rule 62 shows that the tenure as well as assessment class or classes and area of each class of land in the field must be mentioned in the Dag Chitha. But we do not find this detail in Document No. 2. Instead, it has been mentioned that it was an old house and in the remarks column that the land was Lai-rou, or the land of the deity. Perhaps it was because the land was Lai-rou and hence revenue-free, that the tenure and the assessment class were not specially mentioned. If it is the land of the deity then there is no question of assessment or tenure. The fact that the land was assessment-free has not also been denied by the respondents. 13. Perhaps it was because the land was Lai-rou and hence revenue-free, that the tenure and the assessment class were not specially mentioned. If it is the land of the deity then there is no question of assessment or tenure. The fact that the land was assessment-free has not also been denied by the respondents. 13. What the respondents would however say is that the Dag Chitha is not a record-of-right and that no Jamabandi has been prepared for this land and that there was no proof that the 3 Bighas were granted absolutely to the deity and that the deity has got absolute right over it. The respondents cannot be allowed to raise such an argument at all. Rule 57, Ch. I, S. III of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land Revenue Manual Vol. I shows that it was for the Settlement Officer to prepare the Jamabandi, after preparation of the Dag Chitha. Sec. 40 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation shows that Jamabandi based on the Dag Chitha and the field map is to be the record-of-rights. If the Settlement Officer fails to prepare a Jamabandi in accordance with the Dag Chitha as prescribed under the rules, the respondent cannot turn round and say that no such Jamabandi has been prepared and that the petitioner has no right in the land. If the petitioner had no such right, even the Dag Chitha would not have been prepared. It is, therefore, for the respondents to explain why a Dag Chitha was prepared, but not the Jamabandi. The only explanation that I can find is that as the land was held assessment-free and as the land was held by the deity, it was not thought necessary to prepare a Jamabandi. Jamabandi mentions the revenue and it is the basis on which revenue is collected. As there was no assessment for this land, it was perhaps considered not necessary to prepare a Jamabandi. In such circumstances, the Dag Chitha itself is proof of the fact that even in 1923-24 when it was prepared the deity was in possession of this land, assessment-free and further that even in 1923-24, its possession was old possession. 14. It was, however, argued for the respondents that the Dag Chitha itself showed it as waste land. In such circumstances, the Dag Chitha itself is proof of the fact that even in 1923-24 when it was prepared the deity was in possession of this land, assessment-free and further that even in 1923-24, its possession was old possession. 14. It was, however, argued for the respondents that the Dag Chitha itself showed it as waste land. The definition of waste land at page 59 Part II Chapter I Settlement Rules of the Assam Land Revenue Manual Vol. I, 6th Edition was cited before me. According to this definition, waste land meant land at the disposal of the Crown, which the Crown had not disposed of by lease, grant, or otherwise. In column 10 of the Dag Chitha Document No. 2, it is mentioned "house-1, waste land". But column 10 is intended to show the crops on the land. To show that no crops were raised in this land, column 10 showed house-1 meaning thereby that it was a house site with a house on it. It also showed it as waste land, meaning evidently that it was not cultivated land. Certainly, the mention of waste land in column 10 did not indicate in any manner that the land was at the disposal of the Crown. As in column 11, it was mentioned as Lai-rou or land of the deity and as we find the name of the pattadar mentioned as Lainingthou Ibungo Pureiromba Banyadevta in column 3, it is clear that this can never be treated as waste land at the disposal of the Government. 15. Then again, it is not the respondents case that they allotted this land to the Board, because it was waste land at the disposal of the Government. The land was admittedly in the possession of the deity and hence it cannot be at the disposal of the Government and it follows that it is not a waste land. It is their case that they exercised their right of resumption of the said land. Now resumption is governed under S. 43 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. The very act of resumption presupposes that the land is already being held wholly or partially free of assessment. In any case, resumption must be of a land, which is held by a person, in this case by the deity. Now resumption is governed under S. 43 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. The very act of resumption presupposes that the land is already being held wholly or partially free of assessment. In any case, resumption must be of a land, which is held by a person, in this case by the deity. Thus the respondents cannot argue in the face of their own written statement that this was a piece of waste land at their disposal. 16. In this connection, it may be stated that the land in question lies in the Manipur valley. Prior to the integration of Manipur with the Indian Union, the Maharajah was in power. It was only on 13-11-1946 that by resolution No. 18 of the Manipur State Darbar that the Assam Land Revenue Manual was made applicable to Manipur. But even before the regular application of the said Manual to Manipur, the principles under the said Manual were being applied in Manipur. It was as a result of their applicability to Manipur that Dag Chithas and Jamabandis were being prepared in respect of lands in Manipur. The Dag Chitha - document No. 2 was one of such documents prepared in 1923-24. 17. The Maharajah was a Hindu Ruler. It is the allegation in the present petition that the Maharajah and the villagers of Lamlai assembled with their offerings in the land in question and performed Laiharaoba and other ceremonies annually before this deity. These allegations though not admitted in the written statement of the respondents have not been specifically denied by them. Thus when we find that the Darbar of this Hindu Maharajah allowed the possession of the land revenue free to the deity, and that the Dag Chitha document No. 2 was prepared as early as 1923-24, we have to take it that the rights of the deity in the said land were recognised by the then Ruler. It is not necessary for the petitioner to prove that the deitys rights in the land have been perfected by adverse possession against the Government. 18. It is not necessary for the petitioner to prove that the deitys rights in the land have been perfected by adverse possession against the Government. 18. After the integration of Manipur with the Indian Union in 1949, the Government of India, Ministry of States by notification dated 4-2-52 in exercise of the powers conferred on them by S. 2 of the Part C States Laws Act, 1950, extended the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 to the State of Manipur with certain modifications mentioned therein. The chief modifications are that in place of the State Government and in place of the word Governor the word Chief Commissioner shall be substituted. We are not concerned with the other modifications for the present. On this notification, the Chief Commissioner of Manipur issued another notification on 15-5-52 acting in exercise of the powers under sub-section 2 of S. 1 of the said Regulation fixing 1-6-52 as the date on which the said Regulation will come into force in the Manipur valley and in the Jiribam Sub-division. So on the date when this land was taken over from the petitioner, the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation applied to the area where this land was situated. We are not concerned in this petition with the rather anomalous position that the Assam Land Revenue Manual had already been made applicable to the whole of Manipur by the Darbar even in 1947, while the notification of the Government of India in 1952 followed by the notification of the Chief Commissioner made only the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation without the settlement rules applicable only to the valley and one hill-sub-division. We are only concerned with the valley in the present application. Under S. 40 of the Land and Revenue Regulation, the Settlement Officer has to frame for each estate a record-of-rights in the prescribed manner, and as per the note in the section the record-of-rights is the Jamabandi based on the Chitha and the field map. The introduction to the Assam Land Revenue Manual, at page XVIII mentions that the prescribed form to frame the record-of-rights is the Chitha and Jamabandi. When the Jamabandi is absent the Dag Chitha has to be treated as the record-of-rights. Document No. 2 which is the Dag Chitha acts therefore as the record-of-rights for the petitioner. The introduction to the Assam Land Revenue Manual, at page XVIII mentions that the prescribed form to frame the record-of-rights is the Chitha and Jamabandi. When the Jamabandi is absent the Dag Chitha has to be treated as the record-of-rights. Document No. 2 which is the Dag Chitha acts therefore as the record-of-rights for the petitioner. He can be evicted from the said land only in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. 19. Section 12 of the said Regulation states that the Chief Commissioner, Manipur, may make rules to provide for the ejectment of any person who has entered into unauthorised occupation of a land over which no person has the rights of a proprietor, land-holder or Settlement holder, under the Regulation. As already stated, no such rules have been framed for the ejectment. I have already pointed out that the petitioners occupation of the land was not unauthorised in the face of Dag Chitha document No. 2. Thus S. 12 will not apply in the present case. The respondents themselves had stated in their reply statement that they exercised their right of resumption in taking possession of this land. I take it that they used the word resumption not in the sense that they have the right to eject the petitioner under S. 12 of the Land and Revenue Regulation, but in the sense in which the word is used in S. 43 of the said Regulation. I have already pointed out that they have no right to eject the petitioner under S. 12. The petitioner was holding the land revenue-free on the date when the said regulation was made applicable to Manipur by Darbar Resolution No. 18 in 1946 and also when the Chief Commissioner notified on 15-5-52 that the said regulation would come into force in the Manipur valley on 1-6-52. Section 28 of the Regulation provides that all land shall be deemed liable to be assessed to revenue, provided that nothing in the section shall affect any title to hold land revenue-free if the title existed immediately before the commencement of the Regulation, and was valid under the laws then in force. Section 28 of the Regulation provides that all land shall be deemed liable to be assessed to revenue, provided that nothing in the section shall affect any title to hold land revenue-free if the title existed immediately before the commencement of the Regulation, and was valid under the laws then in force. As the Dag Chitha had been issued in respect of this land even in 1923-24 and as the Land and Revenue Regulation was made applicable to Manipur only in 1946 and as the petitioner was continuing to hold the land revenue-free, S. 28 proviso 3 clearly applied to this land. In respect of such a land, resumption can only mean resumption under S. 43 of the Regulation. I have to take it therefore that the respondents meant only resumption under S. 43. But resumption under S. 43 does not mean eviction of the petitioner, but only resumption of revenue to which the land may be liable under S. 28. It is not the respondents case that the Deputy Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner initiated any proceedings under S. 43 or instituted any enquiry under the said section. Thus to call the action of the respondents as resumption in the present case is a misnomer. 20. What happened in this case was that the Chairman of the Social Welfare Board wanted a piece of land in Lamlai village for carrying on social welfare work. On that application, the Chief Commissioner ordered that the piece of land in question, which is part of the petitioners holding will be allotted for the social welfare work. This was done without holding any kind of enquiry. It is a clear case where the land in the possession of the petitioner has been taken over for a public purpose. If the land is necessary for a public purpose by any Government then the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will apply and the Government have to follow the said provisions before taking over the said land. They cannot seek to camouflage their action by calling it resumption. The land has not been resumed by the Government and regranted to another person. It has been taken over for the purpose of allotting it to a public body. They cannot seek to camouflage their action by calling it resumption. The land has not been resumed by the Government and regranted to another person. It has been taken over for the purpose of allotting it to a public body. Any action of the Government in contravention of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act has to be declared as irregular and done without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. 21. Particularly, after the Constitution came into force, Article 31 created the undamental right that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law and that no property shall be taken possession of or acquired for public purposes under any law authorising the taking of such possession of or such acquisition unless the law provides for compensation of property taken possession of or acquired and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation has to be determined and given. In the face of Art. 31, the deprivation of the property of the petitioner by mere executive action without applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other law relating to compensation has to be declared as in derogation of the fundamental right of the petitioner. The order of the Chief Commissioner dated 31-1-58 sanctioning the allotment of the land to the Chairman of the Social Welfare Board has to be declared as passed without jurisdiction and the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari quashing the said order. 22. It was however pointed out for the respondents that the petitioner is a deity and there is no entry of Angom Atomchouba Singh as the Shebait of the deity and that the application filed through such a person as Shebait will not lie. When this point was raised by the respondents in their written statement, the petitioner produced document No. 4 a Jamabandi in which, in respect of another land belonging to the same deity, this Angom Atomchouba Singh of Angom Leikai has been shown as the Shebait. It was pointed out for the petitioner that the name of the Shebait was not mentioned in the Dag Chitha, document No. 2, because no Jamabandi has been prepared and because it was revenue-free land. It was pointed out for the petitioner that the name of the Shebait was not mentioned in the Dag Chitha, document No. 2, because no Jamabandi has been prepared and because it was revenue-free land. It is only when the question of payment of revenue comes in that the name of the Shebait should be entered as the person, who is liable to pay the revenue. I find that document No. 4 has been prepared at about the same time as document No. 2. This shows that no Jamabandi was prepared in respect of document No. 1, because no question of revenue was involved as the land was revenue-free. In any case, document No. 4 clearly showed that Angom Atomchouba Singh is the Shebait of the deity and as such entitled to maintain this application on behalf of the deity. 23. In this connection, it may be mentioned that the petitioner has relied on his fundamental rights under Articles 19(f) (5), 25 and 26 of the Constitution, but has not referred to Article 31 in his petition. It is really Article 31 which applies to the present case. It may even be said that Article 19 will not apply to the deity as it applies to the citizens of India and the deity cannot be called a citizen of India. But Art. 31 does not refer to the citizen of India, but says that no "person" shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. It is well established law that even Appellant Hindu deity is a juridical person capable of owning and possessing property and hence the deity will also come within the ambit of Article 31. 24. It is clear therefore that the petitioner ought not to have been deprived of his property in contravention of Article 31 by a mere executive order without due process of law. Such an executive order infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 31 of the Constitution has to be set aside. The petition is, therefore, allowed and a writ will issue quashing the order allotting the land to the Chairman of the Social Welfare Board and giving possession to the said Chairman. The respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner. Advocates fee Rs. 100/-. Petition allowed.