B. L. Hansaria. J,- An important question relating to rights on the inhabitants of this state to get Periodic Patta under the provisions of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886, for short the "Regulation", has come up for decision in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The precise question for our dete­rmination is whether after coming into force of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, I960, in short the "Land Reforms Act", the provisions contained in the Regulation relating to conversion of Annual Patta land into Periodic Patta land survived or not. 2. The question has arisen for our determination on these broad facts. An area of land measuring 5. 29 acres covered by Dag Nos. 1115, 1226 and 1310 of Patta No. 94 of Serou Village was in occupation of Gajendra Chandra. At one point of time he had been granted Annual Patta for the land in question. It is the case of the predecessor-in interest of the petitioners that Gajendra Chandra had transferred the land to him sometime in 1967. Thereafter on being satisfied that the land was under the possession of the petitioners, the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer granted mutation in the name of the petitioner and thereafter on payment of the premium, the Annual Patta was converted into Periodic Patta. A dispute having been raised by the legal heirs of Gajendra Chandra, the matter came to be examined by the Additional Deputy Commissioner who held that the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The Revenue Tribunal endorsed the view of the Additional Deputy Commissioner. It is this order of the Tribunal which has been assailed in this petition, 3. Shri T, Bhubon Singh submits that in view of what have been stated in section 170(1) of the Land Reforms Act so much of the provisions contained in the Regulation will have to be followed in the State which is not contrary to any part of the provisions contained in the Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel submits that the Land Reforms Act has not dealt with the question of conversion of Annual Patta land into Periodic Patta land and so there is no provision in the Land Reforms Act which is- either expressly or impliedly against the provisions contained in the Regulat­ion relating to the conversion of Annual Patta into Periodic Patta. The learned counsel submits that the Land Reforms Act has not dealt with the question of conversion of Annual Patta land into Periodic Patta land and so there is no provision in the Land Reforms Act which is- either expressly or impliedly against the provisions contained in the Regulat­ion relating to the conversion of Annual Patta into Periodic Patta. To appreciate the submission of Shri T. Bhubon Singh, we may note section 170(1) of the Land Reforms Act. This section reads as follows: ''Repeal and Savings- (1) On and from the date on which any of the provisions of this Act are brought into force in any area in the State of Manipur, the enactments specified in the Schedule or so much thereof as relate to the matters covered by the provisions so brought into force shall stand repealed in such area.” 4. A reference to the Schedule shows that the Regulation is one of the provisions mentioned therein. From a reading of section 170(1) of the Land Reforms Act we are satisfied that part of the Regulation which dealt with the provision of conversion of the Annual Patta Land into Periodic Patta land remained in force even after the Land Reforms Act came into existence inasmuch as in the Land Reforms Act there is no provision relating to the point under examination. May we say that even the Government of Manipur had understood the law to be so as it had asked, vide Annexure A/3, the Settlement Officer to undertake the work of aforesaid conversion upto 31 January 1970. Such an order could not have been passed by the Government if after coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, the provisions contained in the Regulation relating to conversion were to be regarded as not in force. 5. This being the legal position, it has to be determined by the competent authority whether the claim of the petitioners that the land in question had been transferred to them by Gajendra Chandra is, acceptable or not. The authority shall also decide whether the petitioners had paid the premium, etc. and the conversion order had been passed before 31 January 1970. As these are disputed questions of fact, we have not deemed it fit to decide the same in this proceeding for the first time. We would rather leave these matters to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. and the conversion order had been passed before 31 January 1970. As these are disputed questions of fact, we have not deemed it fit to decide the same in this proceeding for the first time. We would rather leave these matters to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. So, the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal in whose jurisdiction the land falls, who would apply his mind to the aforesaid questions of fact and would come to a decision in accordance with law. If it is found that Gajendra Chandra had transferred his interest in the Annual Patta, which is permissible as held' by this Court in Jainur Ali vs. Chafina Bibi AIR 1951 Assam 20, and if the petitioners had paid premium and the Periodic Patta had been issued before 3 i January 19/0, the case would be decided in favour of the petitioners. If these findings be against the petiti­oners, it is apparent that the legal heirs of Gajendra Chandra would be entitled to the land in dispute. 7, The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions. R.K.Manisana, J.-I agree.