In these twelve (12) Civil Rules same questions of law and facts are involved, hence I propose to dispose them all by one common judgment. 2. The petitioners who are landless persons, about 21 years back, reclai­med Government waste lands measuring 1 Pari each (2.5 acres) with specific boundaries among themselves out of the land covered by Dag No. 3123 situated at Leimapokpam Village No. 12, Bishenpur District. The petitioners spent considerable sum of money in the reclamation of the lands aforesaid and much labour had been put in, in order to make the land fit for cultivation of paddy. The petitioners are poor agriculturists who mainly grow paddy for their livelihood. 3. The petitioners applied for settlement of their respective plots of landi which had been reclaimed by them to the Deputy Commissioner. After about ten (10) years of their reclamation and possession of their respective lands, the Deputy Commissioner, after making due enquiry, allotted 1 Pari each to the petitioners by order dated 26.12.78. The petitioners were called upon to pay premium of Rs. 562.50. Premiums were duly paid. 4. Although the land in question was not recorded as grazing ground in the revenue records at the relevant time the said land was a Government waste land and occasionally the inhabitants of the neighbourhood used the land and other adjoining areas covered by the said Dag No.3123 as play ground as well at for grazing purposes. Subsequently after the coming into force of MLR & LR Act of 1960 and Rules framed thereunder, the said land was recorded as grazing ground. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that this act of the Revenue Department in recording the land in question as grazing ground was without any authority if law and without following the procedure laid down in the laid MLR & LR Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. 5. By Government order dated 15.11.78, land measuring 87.91 acres covered by Dag No.3123 and Dag No.2244 situated at Leimap kpam Village was reserved and in the said reservation, out of the Dag No.3123, the lands which had been settled with the petitioners were also included. 6. 5. By Government order dated 15.11.78, land measuring 87.91 acres covered by Dag No.3123 and Dag No.2244 situated at Leimap kpam Village was reserved and in the said reservation, out of the Dag No.3123, the lands which had been settled with the petitioners were also included. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that by erroneously assuming that the earlier allotments made in favour of the petitioners had been struck down by the Court of Revenue Tribunal, the same land was allotted to respondent 5 which is a co-operative society, by order dated 26 8.80. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Revenue Tribunal by the present petitioners. It is asserted consistently that the petitioners are landless farmers and they occupied their respective portions of lands before the said lands were allotted to them in 1978 by the Deputy Commissioner. It was stated in the appeal before the Revenue Tribunal that allotment was done after proper enquiry and that after settlement was issued, due premiums were paid by the petitioners and under such circumstances the petitioners cannot be evicted from the land in their possession nor can the settlement made validly in their favour be cancelled. It is contended that in fact earlier settlement made in favour of the petitioners has never been cancelled, ft was also contended by the petitioners before the learned Revenue Tribunal that statutory rights of the petitioners cannot be nullified and extinguished unless it was done in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law in this regard. However, .the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners by order dated 2.9.81. It is contended that the learned Tribunal simply held that the order of settlement made in favour of the petitioners could be ignored. The learned Tribunal come to this finding, perhaps, on the ground that the settlement was made without jurisdiction and as such the settlement was nullity in law. On the same footing the contention of the petitioners that they ought to have been given oppor­tunity of being heard before their respective lands were sought to be settled with respondent 5, was also rejected. On the same footing the contention of the petitioners that they ought to have been given oppor­tunity of being heard before their respective lands were sought to be settled with respondent 5, was also rejected. It is contended on behalf of the petitio­ners that settlement made in their favour has never been struck down and in this view of the matter the learned Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned allotment order dated 26.8.80 by which lands in possession of the petitioners are sought to be given to respondent 5. 7. Mr Th.Ibobi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Revenue Tribunal has upheld the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.8.80 simply on the ground that in the matter of allotment of lands, society shall be preferred. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has misconstrued the actual application of Rule 8 of Allotment Rules 1962 which is to the effect that between individual entitled to a particular preference and a registered co-operative society constituted for the purpose of which the land is to be allotted and consisting exclusively of persons entitled to the same or higher preference, the society shall be preferred. It is submitted that the provision stated above cannot now be applied to the petitioners who bad been given allotment after proper enquiry was made and after necessary premiums had been paid. It is not a case wherein individuals on the one hand and registered society on the other hand had applied for allotment at the same time. Mr. Ibobi Singh refers me to Rule 2 (d) which is to the following effect: "(d) landless agricultural workers means an individual who is landless and whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour". As stated earlier the petitioners are said to be landless persons and they are small farmers. It is further contended that settlement earlier made cannot be quashed by the learned Tribunal by ignoring t e order of allotment simply on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner hid no jurisdiction to issue the order of settl­ement inasmuch as the Ian ) had not been direserved before the issuance of settlement order. It is further contended that settlement earlier made cannot be quashed by the learned Tribunal by ignoring t e order of allotment simply on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner hid no jurisdiction to issue the order of settl­ement inasmuch as the Ian ) had not been direserved before the issuance of settlement order. Drawing my attention to Rule 15 (vii), the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even prior to 1978 during which year settle­ment was issued in favour o the petitioners as stated above, the petitioners had already been in possession of their respective plots of lands for the purpose of cultivation. It is, therefore, submitted that in terms of Rule 15 (vii) there was no breach of any of the conditions of allotment which would warrant cancellation or quashing of the settlement order issued in 1978. Learned counsel further submits that no cancellation or re-entry can be made unless the allottee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Since the petitioners were not heard before their lands were sought to be given to respondent 5, it is submitted that proviso to Rule 15 (vii) has been violated. 8. It is contended that the petitioners are been in possession of their respective lands for the last about 23 years now. The learned counsel submits that even assuming but not admitting that there was defect in the settlement made in favour of the petitioners in 1978, the petitioners who are landless and very poor farmers cannot be made to suffer as a result of defect committed by the competent authority It is submitted that the law contemplates consi­deration of the cases of the poor people like the petitioners and therefore there is no reason why the petitioners should not be allowed to continue in their possession by giving them necessary settlement orders. 9- Although the writ petitions were filed in 1981 and 1982, even at the time of hearing no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Govern­ment. Reference to AIR 1973 SC 627 Mr. Ibobi Singh submits that in the absence of counter affidavit, statement made in writ petitions should be accepted as prima facie correct. It is stated by Mr. Ibobi Singh that not even a prayer was ever made on behalf of the Government to file a counter. 10. Mr. Reference to AIR 1973 SC 627 Mr. Ibobi Singh submits that in the absence of counter affidavit, statement made in writ petitions should be accepted as prima facie correct. It is stated by Mr. Ibobi Singh that not even a prayer was ever made on behalf of the Government to file a counter. 10. Mr. L. Shyamkishere Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioners have not challenged the order of cancellation and their settlements. As stated above, the petitioners contend that the order of settlement has not been cancelled as such at any time. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned orders have simply ignored their settlement orders on the ground that the said settlement order made in favour of the petitioners was without jurisdiction. According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioners also made fresh application for settlement. The fact that the petitioners are still in possession has been disputed. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider this aspect concerning the request for allotment to the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners have not challenged the cancellation order. Relying in AIR 1954 SC 340 Mr. Shyam-kishore submits that the decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity because it strikes at the very root of the case. According to him, since the allotment issued in favour of the petitioners in 1978 was without jurisdiction, it is honest in the eyes of law, obviously the view of the Government is that the order of settlement need not be cancelled because it was issued without jurisdiction. It is in this view of the matter Mr. Shyamkishore submits that proviso to Rule 15 (vii)is not applicable, to the case of the petitioners for giving reasonable oppor­tunity of being heard because the allotment was made without jurisdiction. 11. Mr. N. Surjamani Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent 5 submits that the land in question measuring 87.91 acres was reserved from the village grazing ground for the purpose of cultivation, wrongly by invoking the provisions of section 34 of the UP Panchayati Raj Act and thereafter the allotment of 2.50 acres out of the said land under Dag No. 3123. was allotted to the writ petitioners by allotment order dated 26.21.78. was allotted to the writ petitioners by allotment order dated 26.21.78. It is submitted that thereafter the Government rectified the illegal processes of the dereservation and resumed the said grazing ground by another order dated 8th Maj, 1979 by invoking the correct procedure laid down under section 24 (ii) of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1975. According to the learned counsel resumption was made on 8.5.79; but this resumption has not been challenged by the petitioners. It is further contended that on 24.5.79, some land was set apart in terms of section 13 of MLR & LR Act, 1960 and this order of setting apart some land belonging to the Government for pastorage for the cattle, for forest reserve or for any other purpose has also not been challenged by the petitioners. Mr. Surjamani Singh also submits that the petitioners made fresh applications for settlement of the land in their possession thereby indicating that they had abandoned their earlier settlement. 12. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent 5 that this respondent society has 31 members and each member is entitled to hold 2.30 acres which would come to a total of 31 hectres. Mr. Surjamani Singh submits that in view of the illegal possession of the petitioners of some portion of land which was given to the respondent 5 society by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 26.8.80, as of today, the respondent 5 society is in possession of only 14 hectres. The submission of the learned counsel as regards preference in terms of Rule 8 of the Allotment Rules is that since respondent 5 is a society, it has been rightly preferred. 13. As regards proviso to Rule 15 (vii) regarding giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, Mr. Surjamani Singh submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any such opportunity inasmuch as there is not order of cancellation as such, inasmuch as the earlier order of allotment was passed without jurisdiction. As regards this submission, reliance has been placed on AIR 1954 SC 340 and AIR 1973 SC 2391 and it is submitted that question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage even if it was not raised in the trial Court. After carefully examining the submissions made by Mr. Shyamkishore as well as Mr. As regards this submission, reliance has been placed on AIR 1954 SC 340 and AIR 1973 SC 2391 and it is submitted that question of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage even if it was not raised in the trial Court. After carefully examining the submissions made by Mr. Shyamkishore as well as Mr. Surjamani, it appears to me that the petitioners would certainly be entitled to an opportunity of being heard before the settlement was cancelled or lands earlier given to the petitioners were sought to be taken away and given to respondent 5 society In this view of the matter, I do not accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondents in this regard. 14. It has been contended by Mr. Ibobi Singh that in fact Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1975 has not been brought into force so far and therefore reference made to section 42 of the said Act has no relevance to present case. 15. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also perused the relevant documents and also pro­visions of law referred at time of hearing. No doubt if there are 31 members in respondent 5 society, they would have less land than the entitlement. At the same time admittedly C*t petitioners have been in possession of their respec­tive plots of lands for more than 20 years as of today. In the circumstances of the present case no fault can be attributed to the petitioners in the matter of settlement issued in their favour in 1978 Settlement was made by competent authority. At the time of settlement they were already in possession of their lands. Assuming that there was error in law in making settlement of the lands in favour of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner was incompetent to issue settlement order. In otherwords, even assuming that certain provision of law resorted to by the Deputy Comm­issioner was wrong, it cannot be said that there was inherent lack of jurisdic­tion on the part of the Deputy Commissioner in the matter of settlement of land As I have stated above, the petitioners who are poor farmers bonafide require the lands in their possession for their livelihood. They applied to the competent authority for settlement. Settlement » as duly made after proper enquiry. They applied to the competent authority for settlement. Settlement » as duly made after proper enquiry. Requirement of law as regards payment of premium was duly com­plied with. Having gone through all these and having been in possession of the land in question for more than 23 years as of now, the lives of the petitio­ners are likely to be up-rooted if lands in their possession are now taken away from them and that also for no fault of theirs. At the same time I am of the view that although respondent 5 society is entitled to more land than it is in possession now it cannot be said that the society will suffer irreparable loss if lands in possession of the petitioners are settled with them. 16. In the premises aforesaid I am of the view that it will be equitabe not to oust the petitioners from the lands they have been in possessions for so many years now. In this view of the matter these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.8.80 passed by the learned Deputy Commis­sioner and also order dated 2.9.81 passed by the learned Revenue Tribunal are set aside as for as the petitioners are concerned and the allotment order dated 26th December, 1978 shall stand restored. I make no order as to cost.