ORDER This is a petition filed for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 (Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner of Manipur) under which they cancelled the settlement of 19-B. 4-K. and 18-L. of land covered by Dag Nos. 1144, 1149, 1157, 1169, 1171 and 1184-sheet No. 2 in Khabeisoi village within the jurisdiction of Imphal East tahsil, Manipur, made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, in favour of the petitioners. 2. The facts of the case leading to the institution of the present writ petition by the petitioners are briefly thus. The first petitioner is Choukidar of Imphal East Tahsil Office and the second petitioner is a lower primary School teacher. All the petitioners are landless agricultural labourers. They belong to the village of Khomidok. Dhomidok and Khabeisoi are adjacent villages. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, Manipur was conferred with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 166 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 33 of 1960) (hereinafter called as the Act) on 16-1-1963 to enable him to exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur under Section 14 (1) of the Act to grant settlement of lands to the landless poor. The notification was published in Manipur Gazette No. 190 Imphal, dated the 23rd January, 1963. In exercise of his powers under Section 14 (1) of the Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, settled an area of 19-B. 4-K. and 18-L. covered by Dag Nos. 1144, 1149, 1157, 1169, 1171 and 1184 of the village Khabeisoi in favour of the petitioners, as can be seen from Ext. A/1 dated 2/3-3-1963. The petitioners were directed to bring the land under cultivation within 3 years from the date of delivery of possession and not to transfer the land within a period of 10 years from the date of allotment without the written consent of the Deputy Commissioner. They were also not liable to pay any premium under Rule 12 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. 3. 5 persons of Khabeisoi village filed Revision Case No. 13 of 1964 under Section 95 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Manipur to set aside the settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioners. 3. 5 persons of Khabeisoi village filed Revision Case No. 13 of 1964 under Section 95 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Manipur to set aside the settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioners. The 1st respondent Additional Deputy Commissioner, Manipur (to whom the case was transferred) held that, though objections were raised by the petitioners before him, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, did not consider them and that he committed a serious irregularity in granting the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners herein. He set aside the order of settlement and allowed the revision petition. He further ordered that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, should take up the question of settlement of the land afresh. 4. The present petitioners, thereupon, filed C. C. Petition No. 234/CCC under Section 95 of the Act before the 2nd respondent Administrator to set aside the order of the first respondent. The second respondent agreed with the order of the first respondent and rejected the petition of the petitioners on 27-1-1965. 5. The petitioners filed the writ petition on 17-5-1965 to quash the orders of the respondents 1 and 2. They made the Additional Deputy Commissioner, the Chief Commissioner and the Union territory of Manipur as respondents 1 to 3. But, they did not add the 5 objectors, who challenged the settlement before the first respondent in Revision Case No. 13 of 1964, as parties. 6. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, who was empowered under Section 166 of the Act to exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 (1) of the Act, is not subordinate to the first respondent as Revenue Officer within the meaning of Section 95 of the Act, that, the first respondent could not entertain the Revision Case No. 13 of 1964 and that, therefore, the order as per Ext. A/2 passed by the first respondent is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The petitioners counsel Stated that he raised the same contention before the second respondent, but that the second respondent did not refer to it. A/2 passed by the first respondent is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The petitioners counsel Stated that he raised the same contention before the second respondent, but that the second respondent did not refer to it. By virtue of the Manipur Gazette notification No. 190 dated 23-1-1963, under which the powers exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 14 (1) of the Act, were conferred upon the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, he should be considered to be his co-equal. No doubt, the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1961 framed thereunder would show that the Sub-Divisional Officer is a subordinate of the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner. Section 4 of the Act mentions the list of Revenue Officers. The Deputy Commissioner is in the first category, while the Sub-Divisional Officers are in the fourth category. Section 5 (1) of the Act lays down that every district shall be placed under the charge of a Deputy Commissioner, who shall be in charge of the revenue administration of the district and exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act or any other law for the time being in force and shall exercise, so far as is consistent therewith, such other powers of superintendence and control within the district and over the officers subordinate to him. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 shows that the Additional Deputy Commissioner shall exercise all such powers and perform all such duties of the Deputy Commissioner or other revenue officer as the Administrator may specify. Section 7 of the Act lays down that all the Revenue Officers shall be subordinate to the Administrator, that all the Revenue Officers in the district shall be subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner and that all the Revenue Officers in a Sub-Division shall be subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer. Section 93 (1) (b) shows that an appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner against an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer. So, the scheme of the Act shows that the Deputy Commissioner has got the powers of superintendence over the Sub-Divisional Officers and that he is also their appellate authority. Section 93 (1) (b) shows that an appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner against an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Officer. So, the scheme of the Act shows that the Deputy Commissioner has got the powers of superintendence over the Sub-Divisional Officers and that he is also their appellate authority. Under Section 95 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner may, at any time, either on his own motion or on the application of any party, call for the records of any proceedings before any revenue officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or the propriety of any order passed by such revenue officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit after giving notice to the parties concerned. Thus, normally the Sub-Divisional Officer is subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner. But, inasmuch as the Sub-Divisional Officer I. E. was conferred with equal powers to perform the duties of Deputy Commissioner under Section 14(1) of the Act in allotting land according to the rules, he could not be said to be subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner and the latter had no power to revise the orders of the former under Section 95 of the Act. His order as per Ex. A. 2 is illegal. 7. But, the authority of the second respondent-Chief Commissioner to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, under Section 95 of the Act is beyond dispute. A revision lay only to the second respondent-Chief Commissioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East. Ext. A/3 shows that the second respondent exercised his power under S. 95 of the Act and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East. Ext. A 3 further shows that the second respondent heard the counsel for the parties and passed the order in question and that he did not admit the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 8. The learned Assistant Government Advocate contended that Ext. A/1 shows that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, passed the order of the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners as "Sub-Divisional Officer" and not as "Deputy Commissioner" and that, therefore, his order of settlement is void, The same argument applies to Ext. A/3, order passed by the second respondent, which shows that the second respondent signed the order as "Chief Commissioner" and not as the "Administrator". A/3, order passed by the second respondent, which shows that the second respondent signed the order as "Chief Commissioner" and not as the "Administrator". Under Section 95 of the Act, it is the Administrator who has got the powers of revision. So, if the argument of the Assistant Government Advocate is to be applied to all the orders in question it follows that the order of the 2nd respondent as per Ext. A/3 is also illegal. The orders have to be construed substantively and not hyper-critically regarding the capacity of the Officers in which they passed the orders in question. 9. The second contention of the petitioners Advocate is that the respondents 1 and 2 set aside the settlement on the ground that the objection filed by the villagers of Khabeisoi were not considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, that though there was provision for issuing notice calling for objections in the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 (Assam Act I of 1886) as extended to the Union Territory of Manipur by a notification under Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 (Act 30 of 1950) it was repealed by the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act of 1960, that the latter Act came into force on 1-6-1961, that the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962, came into force on 27-6-1962, that under the said Rules, no notice was necessary to be issued to the villagers calling for objections and that, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, who took up the questions of settlement in 1963 was not bound to call for objections and consider them. Though the Government is not under any obligation to call for objections after the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 came into force, still the Government was entitled to issue a notification informing the public that it wanted to settle the land in favour of the landless persons. The issue of such a notification by the Government is not at all illegal, since the land belongs to the Government. The issue of such a notification by the Government is not at all illegal, since the land belongs to the Government. Under Section 81 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 a Revenue Officer who exercises powers under the Act, shall be deemed to be a Revenue Court and the necessary provisions of the C. P. C. apply under Section 98 of the Act to an enquiry made by him. So, a Revenue Officer is bound to take the objections raised by the parties into consideration. In the present case, it has to be noted that some kind of fraud appears to have been played. Ext . A/3 shows that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal East, granted the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners on the basis of a report submitted by the Sub-Deputy Collector to the effect that there was no objection to the proposal for settlement. But, in fact, some 5 persons of Khabeisoi village filed a petition objecting to the grant and the petition was not available in the records. So, it was removed from the records. As such, the respondent 2 passed a just order that the objections raised by the villagers should also be considered and that the settlement of the land should be made afresh. Besides, Ext. A/4 copy of the order of the Director of Settlement and Land Records dated 25-3-65, shows that the land in dispute was actually occupied by some other persons already. This fact was also suppressed. So, the order of the 2nd respondent is correct. The petitioners are entitled to have their claim also considered, under Rule 10 of Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 as their village is said to be about 8 kilometres from Khabeisoi. 10. The contention of the Assistant Government Advocate is that the second respondent passed the order on 27-1-1965, but that the petitioners filed the writ petition about 4 months later on 17-5-1965, that, the petitioners are guilty of laches and that, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Though no period of limitation is prescribed, there is a general consensus of opinion among the various High Courts that a writ petition must be filed without delay and that unexplained delay is fatal to it. This is based upon the equitable doctrine that delay defeats equity. Though no period of limitation is prescribed, there is a general consensus of opinion among the various High Courts that a writ petition must be filed without delay and that unexplained delay is fatal to it. This is based upon the equitable doctrine that delay defeats equity. Vide O. A. O. A. M. Muthiah Chettiar v. Commr. of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1951 Mad 204 , Mohandas Issardas v. A. N. Sattanathan. AIR 1955 Bom 113 , Laisram Bokul Singh Kondelei Singh v. State of Manipur, AIR 1956 Manipur, 11, Vishnuprasad Kalidas v. Inspector General of Police Saurashtra, AIR 1956 Sau 39, Devassy Lonappan v. Nattika Firka Rural Co-op. Bank Ltd., AIR 1957 Ker 14 , N. K. Banerjee v. Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta, AIR 1957 Cal 578 , R. M. Devre v. Home Minister through Home Secy. Hyderabad State, AIR 1957 Hyd 14 and T. K. Vasudevan Pillai v. State, AIR 1956 Trav. Co. 33. In the present case Ext. A/4 shows that there were proceedings (to which also the petitioners were parties) before the Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur from 1964 to 25-3-1965, the date of his order evidenced by Ext. A/4, relating to the land in question. The petitioners filed the writ petition within about 2 months thereafter i.e. on 17-5-1965. So, under the circumstance of the case, the delay can be condoned. 11. There is, however, much force in the other contention of the Assistant Government Advocate that the 5 objectors who filed Revision Case No. 13 of 1964 before the first respondent and who were also made respondents in C. C. Petition No. 234/CCC before the second respondent, are necessary parties to the present writ petition and that the failure of the petitioners herein to add them as parties to the writ petition is fatal to the case. There are a number of authorities for the position that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not pass any order affecting the rights of others in their absence. When an order of a tribunal or an authority is sought to be set aside, such tribunal or authority as well as the persons, who are interested in the order or would be affected by the decision of the Court, should be impleaded. When an order of a tribunal or an authority is sought to be set aside, such tribunal or authority as well as the persons, who are interested in the order or would be affected by the decision of the Court, should be impleaded. Vide Sha Devichand Moolchand v. Sha Dhanraj Kantilal, AIR 1949 Mad 53, Amarendra Chandra v. Narendra Kumar Basu, AIR 1953 Cal 114 , Bimal Chand v. Chairman, Jiagunj Azimgunj Municipality, AIR 1954 Cal 285 , Makhan Lal Chakraborty v. S. K. Chatterjee, AIR 1954 Cal 208 , Mandir Thakar Dawara, Dhuri v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1955 Pepsu 159, Purshottam Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 All 106 and Md. Yakub Mallik v. Commissioner of Garden Reach Municipality, AIR 1957 Cal 460 . The contention of the petitioners counsel is that the 5 objectors, at whose instance the settlement was cancelled, are not necessary parties, because the land would not be granted to them, even if the writ petition fails. But, the settlement made in favour of the petitioners was cancelled, because of the objection raised by the 5 objectors. The writ petition cannot be allowed and the settlement cannot be restored in favour of the petitioners without hearing the objectors. So, they are necessary parties to the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed for their non-joinder. 12. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocates fee - Rs. 50/-. Writ petition dismissed.