ORDER :- This is an application by 19 villagers of Lambui village in the Urkhul sub-division of Manipur for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution directing the Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner of Manipur to perform their duties and obligations under Art. 31 of the Constitution in respect of 18 paris and 1/2 sangam of paddy land which were in the possession of the petitioners, but which were taken over by the respondents for the purpose of construction of a motorable road from Litan to Ukhrul. 2. The facts are not in dispute except that the respondents do not admit the extent of the land taken over to be 18 paris and 1/2 songam. The respondents admit that they took possession of the paddy land in the possession of the respondents for the purpose of making the said road. They have produced a Map showing the said road and the location of the land taken over for the said road and the names of the petitioners are shown in the said Map as the persons in possession of the paddy land used for the said road. The petitioners applied to the Chief Commissioner, respondent No. 2 on 15-4-1957 and again on 27-7-1957 and to the Deputy Commissioner on 6-12-1957 to award them compensation as required under Art. 31 of the Constitution and to assess the compensation as required under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894. No replies appear to have been vouchsafed by the Chief Commissioner. But to their petition to the Deputy Commissioner dated 6-12-1957 they received a reply from the E. A. C. (Revenue) attached to the Deputy Commissioners Office dated 15-3-1958 by which they were informed that the land used for the construction of the road was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 and that a sum of Rs. 2,076.90 np. has been sanctioned to the petitioners as ex-gratia payment and that their request for proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 cannot be entertained. The land has already been taken possession of by the respondents from the petitioners. It is under these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 3. 2,076.90 np. has been sanctioned to the petitioners as ex-gratia payment and that their request for proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 cannot be entertained. The land has already been taken possession of by the respondents from the petitioners. It is under these circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 3. The contention of the petitioners in the writ is that they have been in occupation of the lands in Lambui village from the times of their fore-fathers and that they have been paying house tax to the Government through their Khullapa according to custom and usage, that they have not been informed under what provision of law they have been deprived of their property, that their request for inspection of the records concerning the acquisition of the lands was rejected, though the said records are public documents relating to compulsory acquisition and payment of compensation, that under Article 31 of the Constitutions, the respondents cannot deprive them of their property except by authority of law, that as it was a case of compulsory acquisition or requisition for a public purpose it can be done only by authority of law which provided for compensation for the properties so acquired and that therefore the respondents cannot take over the land in question except by proceeding under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. 4. The contention of the respondents in their counter-affidavit was that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioners were possessing the lands since the time of their fore-fathers, that under the land tenure system prevalent in the Hill areas of Manipur, the villagers have no right, title and interest over the land in their respective villages-vis-a-vis the Government of Manipur, that the villagers held the lands at the pleasure of the Government, that the petitioners who claimed to be occupiers of the lands affected by the construction of the road were offered an ex-gratia payment at the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre plus 15 per cent by way of solatium, and that they were not entitled to any compensation under any statute or law. 5. The petitioners filed a reply statement denying that the hill villagers had no right, title and the interest over the land occupied by them and that they occupied the lands at the pleasure of the Government. 5. The petitioners filed a reply statement denying that the hill villagers had no right, title and the interest over the land occupied by them and that they occupied the lands at the pleasure of the Government. They further stated that according to the law and custom, the villagers in the Hill areas were owners of the lands and each village possessed well-defined areas and the villagers possessed paramount right of holding and enjoying their lands from time immemorial. 6. This case involves a decision of the rights which the villagers of the Hill villages of Manipur have with respect to the lands in their occupation in the various Hill villages. The system of land tenure on the Hill villages is in a very inchoate state. Authorities either in the form of books on the subject or records either with the Government or with the hill peoples are lacking. The Assam Land Revenue Manual has been made applicable only to the valley areas of Manipur. The only book on the subject which has been brought to my notice by the parties is "The Naga Tribes of Manipur" by T.C. Hodson, published in 1911. Even this book contains very little about the land tenure system in the hill areas. It is not necessary at this stage to deal at any great length with these questions as it will be the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the rights of the villagers in the land, if I hold in this case that the petitioners herein are entitled to claim compensation for the taking over of the lands by the Government. It is sufficient to say that in the above Book, Mr. Hodson states at page 105 that each village possesses a well-defined area which is sometimes demarcated with regular boundary stones and within which the villagers possess paramount rights of hunting, of fishing, if a river be included, and of development of cultivation either by making new terraces or by jhuming. It is stated further that in the case of villages which possessed terraced fields, we find a mass of customs relating to the equitable distribution of water throughout the terraces, the highest fields getting the water first and to prevent waste to allow it to go to the lower fields. The book further states that land is held in several ownership, but no alienation outside the clan was permitted. The book further states that land is held in several ownership, but no alienation outside the clan was permitted. Again, at page 99 of the same book, we find it stated that a common feature of the village system was that the village area was strictly defined and occasionally delimited by artificial boundary marks within which the villagers are free to fish, if a river be in the area, to hunt, and if necessary even in the case of permanent village with terraced cultivation, to develop their cultivation by jhuming. The book states that in cases where permanent villages subsist by means of jhums, the rights of ownership are recognised in the jhums which are cultivated in a strict rotation, and several ownership in the land is common, but is limited by the condition that land may not be alienated, at any rate, outside the villages, if indeed disposal outside the clan be permitted. 7. The first attempt at codification of the system obtaining in the hill areas appears to have been made by the Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947. Even in the said regulation, the rights of villagers in the lands have not been defined. There is no record to show the lands in the possession of the various villagers though as stated in Mr. Hodsons Book, the boundaries of hill villages are well defined. There is no system of assessment of lands in the hill villages. Each village has got a Khullakpa or Chief and certain other village Officers like the Luplakpa. The Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947 contains in its schedule the lists of villages in the various sub-divisions with the number of taxable houses in each village. The present village in question, namely, the Lambui village is shown as Item No. 49 in the East Sub-Division Office Circle No. 1 of Ukhrul with 43 taxable houses. The only taxes collected from the Hill village by the Government are the house taxes from each house-holder or family at a fixed rate. The mode of collection is through the Khullakpa of each village. The Government in turn does not interfere with the enjoyment and possession of the lands in the various villages so long as the house taxes are paid by the Khullakpas. The mode of collection is through the Khullakpa of each village. The Government in turn does not interfere with the enjoyment and possession of the lands in the various villages so long as the house taxes are paid by the Khullakpas. The actual enjoyment and separate ownership and possession of the lands in the various villages among the villagers appear to be a matter of internal arrangement as between the Khullakpa and the villagers. We find from Sections 60 to 64 of the Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation, 1947 that provision is made for settlement of disputes regarding the ownership of land or the right of cultivation over land or regarding village boundaries. This would show that ownership of land and right to cultivation are recognised in the Hill villages. 8. Thus the position is that the Government recognised the rights of the various villages to enjoy the land within the boundaries of their village taking from them in return only the house taxes to be collected through the respective Khullakpas. This system has been in existence probably ever since these Hill tribes occupied the various villages in the hills. With regard to the Lambui village, it is clear from the Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation that the said village has been in existence at least from before 1947. As to the contention of the petitioners that they have been in occupation of the lands from the times of their fore-fathers, it is a matter which the Land Acquisition Officer has to decide in order to fix the compensation payable to the villagers. We are at present concerned only with the question whether the land is Government land and whether the villagers are in possession of it as contended by the respondents only during the pleasure of the Government. I do not find any provision made in the Manipur State Hill Peoples Regulation for the Government to evict the villagers from any particular village at the pleasure of the Government. What is prohibited under S. 64 of the said Regulation is the formation of a new settlement or of any Matchet without the permission in writing of the S. D. O. That is where Khas land in Government possession is sought to be occupied. What is prohibited under S. 64 of the said Regulation is the formation of a new settlement or of any Matchet without the permission in writing of the S. D. O. That is where Khas land in Government possession is sought to be occupied. As far as Lambui village is concerned, it is not a new settlement or a new Matchet, but one already in existence and recognised as seen in the schedule to the Hill Peoples Regulation. It follows therefore that the Government have accepted the rights of the villagers to be in possession of the lands in Lambui village at least ever since the enactment of the said Regulation in 1947 and it is too late in the day for the Government to say that the villagers are in possession only during the pleasure of the Government. The Hill villagers have been dealing with the lands in their possession with heritable rights and with rights of alienation at least within their own clan or their own villages as seen from Hodsons book. Such rights have to be recognised. Such rights amount to "Property" within the meaning of Art. 31 of the Constitution and the Government cannot deprive the petitioners of their rights in the property in question save by authority of law, which means that they cannot be deprived of the property by mere (executive action as has been done in the present case. 9. Admittedly, the Government took over the land in the present case for a public purpose, namely, the construction of the motorable road. Such taking over of land for a public purpose admittedly in the possession of the villagers has to be treated as compulsory acquisition. The law which gives to the Government the right for such compulsory acquisition is contained in the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894. There is no other law for such purpose applicable in Manipur. It follows that except by following the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, the Government have no authority to deprive the petitioners of their land by making an ex-gratia payment. The Government have to make the requisite notifications as prescribed in Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act and give notices to the persons interested in the said land as prescribed under S. 9 so that they may put in their claims to compensation for their interest in the land. The Government have to make the requisite notifications as prescribed in Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act and give notices to the persons interested in the said land as prescribed under S. 9 so that they may put in their claims to compensation for their interest in the land. Then an enquiry has to be held as provided under Sec. 11 and an award has to be made by the Collector and it has to be filed in the Collectors Office. There are further provisions, for persons who do not accept the award to have the matter taken up to Courts. The petitioners have been deprived of all these opportunities before they were dispossessed from the lands. There is no doubt that the action of the respondents has been arbitrary and in violation of Art. 31 of the Constitution and also of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Government Advocate who appeared for the respondents had to concede this position in the course of the arguments. 10. It is necessary therefore that a writ of mandamus should issue in this case directing the respondents to follow the provisions of Art. 31 of the Constitution and of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the acquisition of the land in this case. I wish to make it clear however that the actual measurement of the land is not being decided in the present proceeding and it will have to be done when the Collector makes the enquiry under S. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. 11. The petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to proceed under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 for the acquisition of the land taken possession of from the petitioners for the purpose of construction of the Litan-Ukhrul motorable road. The respondents will pay Rs. 100/- by way of costs to the petitioners. Petition allowed.