ORDER : These 3 Writ Petitions Nos. 12 of 1963, 13 of 1963, 14 of 1963, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Shri K. Ibotombi Singh, Shri M. Thambou Singh and Shri S. Shamu Singh respectively for issue of a Writ of certiorari to quash the orders of respondent No. 1 dated 6-2-1963 and 7-6-1963 and the order of respondent No. 2 dated 12-2-1963 are more or less similar and identical and they all raise common question of law. These Writ Petitions were argued and heard together. I shall therefore, dispose of these Writ Petitions together by this judgment. 2. The facts which have given rise to these petitions are that in the year 1952 the Imphal Town Fund encouraged the landless people to reclaim and improve the waste low lying lands on the eastern bank and river bed of the Nambul river along the Paona Bazar Road. The 3 petitioners separately filled in the sites of their respective plots measuring 100 x 30, 45 x 35 and 144 x 27 by putting in huge quantity of earths and made them suitable for habitation by spending a lot of money. They erected buildings and structures with the acquiescence of the Imphal Town Fund for accommodating their dependents, and running small business. These plots are in their possession for about 10-11 years and throughout this period they had been applying for regular settlement of the same with them on payment of necessary premium and arrears of revenues. That from 1957 to 1961, the Revenue Department granted permission to the petitioners from time to time allowing them to use and occupy the said plots with their buildings and other structures. But the Revenue Department did not grant them regular settlement. Thereafter on 3-7-1962, the Chief Commissioner ordered that these plots of lands would be thrown open for settlement to everybody and the cases of the petitioners would also be considered on merit along with others and their construction would be removed on the completion of the settlement proceedings. But the Revenue Department did not grant them regular settlement. Thereafter on 3-7-1962, the Chief Commissioner ordered that these plots of lands would be thrown open for settlement to everybody and the cases of the petitioners would also be considered on merit along with others and their construction would be removed on the completion of the settlement proceedings. Thereupon, on 1-11-1962, the petitioners made representation to the respondent No. 2 for the settlement of the said plots to them, but the respondent without hearing the petitioners arbitrarily selected the other respondents as deserving persons for the settlement of these plots and submitted a report on 1-2-1963 to the respondent No. 1 for obtaining his sanction under Sec. 14(2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. The respondent No. 1 on 6-2-1963, approved the allotment of plots to the respondents without hearing the petitioners and without ascertaining or verifying the purpose for which the allotment of plots was made. The petitioners thereupon filed Revision Petitions on 19-2-1963 to respondent No. 1 for setting aside the order granting settlement to the respondents and the respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties dismissed the Revision Petitions vide order dated 7-6-1963. Now being aggrieved by these orders they have filed these Writ Petitions. 3. These Writ Petitions were admitted only on the question whether the provision in Sec. 141(2) of the Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act is ultra vires or not. After admission notices were issued to the respondents, they appeared and filed written settlement opposing the petitions by denying the facts alleged by the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that Sec. 14(2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, is unconstitutional and ultra vires as it confers arbitrary and unfettered powers on the Executive in the matter of allotment of land belonging to the Government. In developing his argument the learned counsel contended that there are no prescribed rules to control the manner and principles for the allotment of the lands for the purpose of Industry or Public utility by the Administrator. 5. As the Administrator is not bound by any rule at the time of allotment of Government land, therefore, his power is unlimited and unrestricted. Moreover, the order of the Administrator is final as no appeal lies. 5. As the Administrator is not bound by any rule at the time of allotment of Government land, therefore, his power is unlimited and unrestricted. Moreover, the order of the Administrator is final as no appeal lies. Besides that no check has been provided in the case of Administrator in the matter of allotment of land under Sec. 14(2), therefore, he is bound to exercise his power arbitrarily. Hence, the section should be struck off being ultra vires and unconstitutional. 6. The Government Advocate in order to controvert the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this is an admitted fact that these are Government lands therefore the Government have every right to dispose of the Government land like an ordinary citizen disposing of his own land. 7. He next urged that rules were framed for the allotment of the Government land under Sec. 14(1) but no rules were framed for the allotment of land by Administrator under Sec. 14(2) as the Parliament did not consider necessary to frame rules. If there had been any necessity for framing rules, rules would have been framed. Under Sec. 14(2), the Parliament laid down the policy as in what manner the Government lands would be settled with the citizens. While laying down the policy it imposed two conditions on the Administrator that he can dispose of the Government lands only for the purpose of Industry or for public utility, in view of these conditions it cannot be called that this section gives unfettered powers to the Administrator in the disposal of the Government lands and hence this section cannot be called unconstitutional. There appears merit in the argument of the learned Government Advocate. S. 14(2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, does not confer arbitrary and unfettered powers on the Administrator in the matter of settlement of the Government land as alleged by the petitioners. It lays down safeguards, i.e. restrictions on the Administrator so that he may not abuse the power delegated to him. The Administrator can allot the land only for the purpose of Industry or public utility and not for any other purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that Section 14(2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960, is unconstitutional. 8. The Administrator can allot the land only for the purpose of Industry or public utility and not for any other purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that Section 14(2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960, is unconstitutional. 8. The learned Government Advocate and the counsel for the respondents 3 to 8 contended that the petitioners have no right over the lands in dispute therefore they have no locus standi to file these petitions. 9. In order to elucidate this point the Government Advocate contended that proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution can be invoked when there is a legal right which has been infringed or is about to be infringed or there is a legal wrong which has been inflicted or is about to be inflicted. Therefore in order to bring these petitions within the mischief of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, it was the duty of the petitioners to show that their legal rights or fundamental rights have been infringed. But they failed to establish their legal rights. In these cases it is an admitted fact that the lands belong to the Government. The petitioners do not claim any right over the land under limitation. They claim that they reclaimed the land and it is in their possession, but the respondents deny this fact. Therefore without enquiry it cannot be said as to whose version is correct. The petitioners are trespassers all along and are in unauthorised possession of the lands therefore it is not open to them to complain that they should not be evicted therefrom and the lands be settled with them. The petitioners therefore have no locus standi to invoke the help of the High Court. 10. There is substance in the argument of the learned Government Advocate. 11. The lands in dispute belong to Government and the petitioners are the trespassers therefore the question of the infringement of their right does not arise in these cases. It is a matter of settlement of Government khas land, which is in possession of Government, therefore, in such cases no writ can be issued against the Government. 12. In these cases two of the petitioners have been given some lands in settlement according to the merits of their cases. It is a matter of settlement of Government khas land, which is in possession of Government, therefore, in such cases no writ can be issued against the Government. 12. In these cases two of the petitioners have been given some lands in settlement according to the merits of their cases. I therefore, find that the petitioners have no right to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. I also find that no rights of the petitioners were violated by the Impugned orders and as such they have no right to challenge the validity of the Impugned orders of allotment. I, therefore, find that there are no merits at all in these Writ Petitions and they are dismissed with costs of the respondents, Advocates fee Rs. 200/-, Rs. 100/- to respondents 1 and 2 and Rs. 100/- to other respondents in each case. Petitions dismissed.