This appeal is by the defendants. The respondent as the plaintiff Sled the suit in question for his right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of the khas possession of the portion of the land in question. According to the plaintiff the suit land which was a khas land of the Government, was settled with him by the Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur with previous sanction of the Government} the settlement order was followed by duly executed a registered deed dated 26.7.75 and, thereafter, the possession of the suit land was delivered by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 23.12.75. The plaintiff was pre­pared to construct his house on the suit land but the defendant Nos.l and 2 obstructed and also forcibly trespassed on the suit land and also errected three structures as described in the plaint. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the allegation that the allotment was not a valid one, that there was no delivery of possession and that some portions of the suit land were being used as cremation ground for over 100 years and the remaining area was used as the approach road by the people of the locality including the defendants from the houses of the defendants and others. 2. 7 issues framed by the learned trial Court on the pleadings are quoted below : " (1) Has the plaintiff title to the suit land ? (2) Which party has been in possession of the portions of the suit land other than those occupied the plaint-schedules ('B', 'C' and 'D' structures) ? (3) Are the defendants trespassers on the plaint-schedules 'B' and 'C lands and also on the southern part of the suit land measuring 17' X 6' covered by a portion of the plaint-schedule 'D' structure ? If so, are they liable to be evicted therefrom with the demoli­tion of the structures ? (4) Whether the defendants have been using the suit land as their cremation ground and some portion of it as their approach passage as of right continuously, exclusively and as of right for more than 100 years ? If so, have they established their customary right and usage as such, over the suit land? (4) Whether the defendants have been using the suit land as their cremation ground and some portion of it as their approach passage as of right continuously, exclusively and as of right for more than 100 years ? If so, have they established their customary right and usage as such, over the suit land? (5) Whether the allotment in favour of the plaintiff is hit by section 2 of the Manipur Town and Country Planning Act, 1975 for not taking no objection certificate from the Town Planning Department of Manipur ? If so, what is its effect ? (6) Whether the allotment is in violation of the provisions of Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1961 ? If so, what is its effect. (7) Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs claimed ?" 3. Mr. Th. Ibobi Singh has urged that as the allotment order of the land was not in accordance with the law, the learned trial Court committed an error by decreeing the suit. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to section 14 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, for short, the Act and the Rule 7 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1961, for short, the Allotment Rules. Section 14 of the Act empowers the Deputy Commissioner to allot the Government khas land for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling houses in accordance with the relevant rules. It is submitted at the bar that the present position is that the Government khas land within the Municipality can be allotted with the previous permission of the State Government and that the power of the Deputy Commissioner can now be exercised by the Director of Settlement and Land Records of the State. Clause (iii) of Rule 7 of the Allotment Rules provides for allotment of land to any person not owning any house or site for a house and who intends to build the house for personal habitation. The explanation to the rule provides that a person shall be deemed to be a person not owning any house if he owns no permanent structure for residential purposes within the territory of Manipur. 4. Mr. The explanation to the rule provides that a person shall be deemed to be a person not owning any house if he owns no permanent structure for residential purposes within the territory of Manipur. 4. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh has taken me through the evidence of the plaintiff (PW-1) in support of his contention that the plaintiff has no other residential house in the State of Manipur. I have perused the evidence and I am satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel. As the plaintiff has no other house, he is qualified for allotment of the land belonging to the Government as envisaged under clause (iii) of Rule 7 of the Allotment Rules. Ext. A/1 is the letter from the Government to the Director of Settlement and Land Records conveying the approval of the Gove­rnment for allotment of land to the plaintiff, Ext. A/2 is the agreement of allotment duly registered, Ext. A/3 is the Patta and Ext.A/6 is the certificate of delivery of possession dated 23rd Dece­mber, 1975 issued showing the delivery of possession of land to the plaintiff. 5. Mr. Ibobi Singh has urged that as the allotment was in respect of the Government knas land, the State Government should have advertised calling for application and in support of it, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Shri Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 . In that case it was held that State owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. It was further held that the public interest is the par­amount consideration and one of the methods of securing the public interest when it is considered necessary, to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. In the case in hand, the allotment of the land was made in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As stated earlier, the plaintiff has no residential house and he is qualified to get the allotment of the land under the Allotment Rule. So long, the Act and Rule remained in the statute book any action taken by the concerned authority under the said provisions of law cannot be treated as invalid. As stated earlier, the plaintiff has no residential house and he is qualified to get the allotment of the land under the Allotment Rule. So long, the Act and Rule remained in the statute book any action taken by the concerned authority under the said provisions of law cannot be treated as invalid. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision is not applicable to the case in hand in view of what stated above. In the said case before the Apex Court, the question was regarding the allotment of land for construction of Five Star Hotel which was made after negotiation. The facts are also different and so situation that arose in the said case is different 6. Mr. Ibobi Singh has urged that the allotment of land under section 14 of the Act can be made only for public purposes. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel and in my opinion the executive would be acting within its jurisdiction if any allotment is made in accordance with the guidelines laid down in section 14 of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Allotment Rules, 7. Relying on section 27 of the Manipur Town and Country Plann­ing Act, 1975, Mr. Ibobi Singh has urged that the allotment order is invalid and it contravenes the said section inasmuch as no objection certificate from the Town and Country Planning Department was not obtained before the allotment. The said section have been incorporated in Chapter IV under the head 'Master Plan of the Act in question. On reading section 27, more particularly sub-secti­on (2) it is absolutely clear that no objection certificate is necessary only in the 'Plan Area'; it is not disputed at the bar that the 'Master Plan5 was not notified long after the allotment of land in question was made. So sub-section (2) of section 27 is not attracted to the case in hand. Sub-section (1) of the said section is also not attracted on two grounds - by the allotment in question ihe land was not sub-divided as the entire land covered by one dag was allotted to the plaintiff and the area in question was not covered by 'Master Plan' so the contention of Mr. Ibobi Singh has no force. 8. In the registered deed of allotment Ext. Ibobi Singh has no force. 8. In the registered deed of allotment Ext. A/2, it was clearly stated that the allotment was subject to the provisions of the Assam Municipal Act as extended to Manipur. According to Mr. Ibobi Singh, in the case in hand, as no permission from the Munic­ipality was obtained, the allotment is bad. The contention of the learned counsel is not acceptable inasmuch as it only says that the allotment is subject to the provisions of the Municipal Law. In other words, if the plaintiff wants to construct any structure on the land in question, he has to observe the bye-law of the Muni­cipality and that stage has not come. 9. Clause 6 of the above allotment empowers the Deputy Commissioner to cancell the allotment if the land is not put to use for the purpose for which the allotment was made within 2 years from the date of allotment. It, however, provides that such cancellation can be made only after giving reasonable oppor­tunity of being heard to the plaintiff. Noting on the above clause, the learned counsel for the appellants has urged that as the plaintiff failed to construct his residential house, the allotment stands cancelled. Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the evidence on records to show that the house could not be constructed due to obstruction by the defendants. I find substance in his submission. Mr. Nilamani Singh has 'farther urged that the allotment order automatically does not j stand cancelled for violation, if any, for the said clause 6 and it is in the discretion of the concerned authority to decide this point only after following the principles of natural justice. On reading the said clause, I accept the contention of the learned counsel and in my opinion this clause empowers the concerned authority, to cancel the allotment provided the authority is satisfied that the allottee negligently or intentionally kept the land vacant. 10. Mr. Ibobi Singh has urged that the plaintiff has failed to prove miserably regarding the delivery of possession by Ext. A/6 inasmuch as there was no independent witness to such delivery in the said exhibit and that apart, the plaintiff did not examine the Assistant Settlement Officer who delivered of possession and also other independent witness. 10. Mr. Ibobi Singh has urged that the plaintiff has failed to prove miserably regarding the delivery of possession by Ext. A/6 inasmuch as there was no independent witness to such delivery in the said exhibit and that apart, the plaintiff did not examine the Assistant Settlement Officer who delivered of possession and also other independent witness. In my opinion, for delivery of possession of such land the presence of independent witness is not necessary. The concerned official is competent to hand over the possession. Regarding non-examination of Assistant Settlement Officer, I am of the opinion that the examination of the Supervisor Kanungo as P W-2 is sufficient. Mr. Nilamani Singh has drawn my attention to the Patta Ext.A/3 which was prepared during the settlement operation. From columm 5 of the said Patta, it is clear that the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff and as such, after the allotment, the possession of the land was duly delivered to the plaintiff. Mr. Nilamani Singh ' has placed reliance in the decision of this Court in Thonkhodou Kuki vs. S. Khongjai, (1983) 2 GLR 175. This Court held that delivery of possession is not a condition precedent to acquisition of right over the allotted land, that the vesting of right and title under the allotment order cannot be held to have been deferred until the delivery of possession. This ratio was laid down in connection with a matter arising out of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in H. Bira Sarma vs. H. S. Sarma, AIR 1975 Gauhati (sic) has held that record of rights like Dag Chitha and Jamabandi' have presumative value as to the possession of a person whose names have been recorded. This supports the contention of Mr. Nilamani Singh that Ext A/5, the Patta shows that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. 11. Mr. Ibobi Singh has drawn my attention to the judgment of the learned trial Court and urged that while deciding issue ,Nos. 5 and 6, the learned Court misplaced the burden of proof on the defendants. In deciding issue No, 5, the learned Court held that as the allotment of land was made by the competent authority, it is presumed under section 114 of the Evidence Act to have been regularly performed and that the defendants ought to have adduced evidence to rebute this presumption. In deciding issue No, 5, the learned Court held that as the allotment of land was made by the competent authority, it is presumed under section 114 of the Evidence Act to have been regularly performed and that the defendants ought to have adduced evidence to rebute this presumption. In dealing with issue No. 6, the learned trial Court observed that there was no evidence produced by the defendants to the absence of permission from the Municipal Board. Mr. Nilamani Singh, in support of the impugned judgment, has placed reliance in two decisions of the Apex Court, namely, Ajit, 'Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 856 and. P.J. Ratnam vs. D. Kanikaram, AIR 1964 SC 244 . It was held in the above decisions of the Apex Court that there would be a presumption of regularity in respect of official and judicial acts and it would be for the party who challenges Such regularity to plead and prove the case. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, 1 find that the defendants have not taken the plea that no allotment ot the land was made as pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint. The defendants have challenged the allotment order on other ground which I have already dealt with. It is settled law that no amount of evidence can be looked into by the Court which is not hi accordance with the pleadings of the parties. Though the learned trial Court put the onus on the defendants regarding the allotment order, 1 am of the opinion that it would not necessary inasmuch as the allotment order has been duly proved which is sufficient to confer title of the land on the plaintiff. Regarding the permission from the Municipal Board, I have already observed that it would be necessary only at the time of construction of any structure on the suit land. 12. Two other points have been urged by Mr. Ibobi Singh while attacking the impugned judgment. The said points are arbitrary assumption and non-application of judicial mind in any event the suit ought to have dismissed. I have gone through the evidence on records and perused the impugned judgment and I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel. Ibobi Singh while attacking the impugned judgment. The said points are arbitrary assumption and non-application of judicial mind in any event the suit ought to have dismissed. I have gone through the evidence on records and perused the impugned judgment and I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel. The plaintiff has duly proved his title by proving the allotment deed and the approval of the Government and also his possession by Ext. Ay6. The revenue record, namely, Patta Ext. A/3 also proves that the land was in possession of the plaintiff vide column 5 under the heading Number of Dag under direct possession'. Having proved this, it was for the defendants to show that a part of the suit land was used for about 100 years as cremation ground and other part as public path. Regarding these two points, the learned trial Court by a reasoned and elaborate judgment has decided these issues against the defendants. I do not find non-application of judicial mind and in my opinion, the learned trial Court came to the findings after due consideration of the evidence on records and I find no reason to interfere with the above findings. 13. The allotment order was challenged before the appropriate higher authority and the said order was upheld and the civil Court is not the Court of appeal in respect of allotment order, of course, the civil Court will be within its jurisdiction to set aside the allotment order if it is contrary to law which is not so in the present case. Rule 55 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1961 framed under the Act provides for preparation of the separate settlement register for each village and sub rule (2) indicates the particulars to be contained in the said register. Sub clause (e) and (m) of clause 12 of the sub-rule (2) indicates that the customary rights of the villagers and burial and cremation ground have to be noted in the said register. As the defendants claimed that a part of the land was used as cremation ground and other part as customary rights of the villagers by way of passage, these two important factors ought to have found place in the settlement register. As the defendants claimed that a part of the land was used as cremation ground and other part as customary rights of the villagers by way of passage, these two important factors ought to have found place in the settlement register. PW-2 the Revenue Staff has categorically denied the above allegations of the defendants and, therefore, I do not find any substance in the pleas taken by the defendants. 14. As the plaintiff has proved title to the land and also possession and as he was dispossessed from a part of the land, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. The learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit and I find no substance in the present appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.