This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises in the following circumstances : 2. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Central) Manipur disposed of a number of Revenue Revision Cases bearing Nos. 44 of 1979, 45 of 1979, 46 of 1979, 3 of 1977, Revenue Mise. Case No. 1 of 1979, and Revenue Misc. Case No. 5 of 1980 by his orders passed on 18.11.80, 18.11.80, 18.11.80, 27.10.80, 3.12.80 and 14.11.80 respectively. 3. The present respondent Nos. 2 to 7 challenged the aforesaid orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner before the Revenue Tribunal under section 95 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the sole ground that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Manipur had no power to hear the Revenue cases on the dates when he disposed of the aforesaid cases. As a common question of law was involved, the Revenue Tribunal disposed of all the revenue petitions which were numbered as 55 of 1980, 56 of 1980, 57 of 1980, 62 of 1980 and 13 of 1981 and by a common order dated 22nd July, 1981 quashing the aforesaid orders of the Additional Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the Additional Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the aforesaid cases. There is no dispute as to these facts and it is not disputed that Additional Deputy Commissioner Mr. Naved Masood was not empowered to hear such revenue cases either under the provisions of section 93 or 95 of the Act on the dates when he disposed of the aforesaid cases. But Mr. L. Shyamkishore Singh, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that although Mr. Naved Masood was not. empowered to deal with the revenue cases on the dates when he disposed of the aforesaid revenue revision cases he was subsequently invested with the powers by notification dated 5th May, 1981 contained in Annexure A/1. To appreciate the contention of Mr. Shyamkishore Singh it would be useful to quote the order which is as under : "Orders by the Governor, Manipur Imphal, the 5th May, 1981. To appreciate the contention of Mr. Shyamkishore Singh it would be useful to quote the order which is as under : "Orders by the Governor, Manipur Imphal, the 5th May, 1981. No. 25/8/75-R. In partial modification of this Government orders of even number dated the 18th October, 1980 and in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 4 (c) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, I960 (Act 33 of 1960), the Governor of Manipur hereby appoints Shri Naved Masood, IAS Additional District Magistrate (Central).Manipur as Additional Deputy Commissioner,Manipur Central District for the purpose of the said Act and further, the Governor of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred by section 166 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 33 of 1960) is pleased to order that Shri Naved Masood, Additional Deputy Commi­ssioner (C) shall exercise all the powers conferred on the Deputy Commi­ssioner by the said Act, subject to the overall control of the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur Central District. 2. Further, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (2) of section 5 and section 166 of the said Act, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to delegate the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under the said Act to him and he will exercise such powers and function subject to the control and supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of the Manipur Central District. 3. Further, the Governor of Munipur is pleased to order that this order be deemed to come into force from the date of appointment of Shri Naved Masood as Additional Deputy Commissioner. By orders and in the name of the Governor Sd/- (W. Ibochouba Singh) Secretary (Rev) to the Government of Manipur." 4. A perusal of this notification shows that by the first part of the order, Shri Naved Masood was appointed as Additional Deputy Commissio­ner, Manipur Central District for the purpose of the Act and he was also empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Deputy Commissoner by the said Act subject to overall control of the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur Central District. By the second part of the order Shri Masocd was also delegated powers of the Deputy Commissioner and by the third part of this notification it was ordered that this order empowering Shri Masood to Act as Deputy Commissioner will be effective from the date of his appointment as Additional Deputy Commissioner. 5. Mr. N.Kumarjit Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents has, therefore, contended that even this order does not validate the orders that were passed by Mr. Naved Masood before 5rh May, 1981 as the first part of this order will show that Shri Masood was appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioner on this date i.e. 5,5.1981. But Mr.L.Shyamkishore Singh placed the Manipur Gazette dated 29th October, 1980 which shows that Shri Naved Masood, IAS Additional District Magistrate (Central), Manipur was appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Manipur Central District on 18th of October, 1980, The order reads :- "Imphal, the 18th October, 1980 No. 25/8/75 R. The Governei of Manipur, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 4 (b) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 33 of 1960), hereby appoints Shri Naved Masood, IAS, Additional District Magistrate Central Manipur as Additional Deputy Commissioner, Manipur Central District for the purpose of the said Act with immediate effect. S. Ibochaoba Singh Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt. of Manipur." 6. So. the contention of Mr. Kumarjit Singh that Mr. Naved Masood was not appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioner before 5th May, 1981 is not acceptable as it will be quite apparent from the above quoted order that Shri Masood, IAS Additional District Magistrate (Central), Manipur was appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioner on 18th October 1980 for the purpose of Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. 7. It is argued by Mr. Shyamkishore Singh that although Shri Masood was not empowered to deal with the aforesaid revenue cases on the date when he disposed of the cases, the judgments rendered by him cannot be regarded to be void as 'de facto doctrine' very much applies in the present case and this doctrine saves the acts of the officer performed by him within the scope of his official authority in the interest of public and not for his own benefits. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Achanti Sreenivasa Rao and others vs. state of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1981 SC 1473 . In the aforesaid, two cases the question that came up for decision was whether Shri G. Anjappa, Additional Sessions Judge who disposed of the appeal of Gokaraju Rangaraju and Shri Raman Raj Saxena, Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur who disposed of Cri­minal Appeal Nos.315 and 316 of 1976 arising out of the Sessions Case No.12 of 1975 convicting the accused were competent to hear the cases and dispose of them as their appointments as Additional Sessions Judge were quashed on the ground that their appointment was in violation of the provisions of Article 233 of the Constitution. The question was, therefore, raised in the criminal revision as well as in the criminal appeals that the judgments rendered by Shri Anjappa and Shri Saxena were void and required to be set aside. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that though the appointment of Shri Anjap in and Saxena as District Judge Grade II were invalid yet they were not mere usurpers hut had held office under lawful authority and therefore, the judgments rendered by them were valid and could not be questioned in collateral proceedings. The Supreme Couit referred to a number of decisions of the Court of Appeal in England as well as Indian Courts and rejected both the appeals with the observations that "Judges who rejected the appeal in one case and convicted the accused in other case were not mere usurpers or intruders but were persons who discharged the functions and duties of Judges under colour of lawful authority." 8. But Mr. N.Kumarjit Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that a bare perusal of sections 93 and 95 of the Act will make it clear that it is only the Deputy Commissioner who can hear such revenue appeals/revisions and not the Additional Deputy Commissioner unless he is empowered according to law. It is, therefore, argued by Mr. Kumarjit that since Mr. It is, therefore, argued by Mr. Kumarjit that since Mr. Naved Masood was not empowered under the provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, he was not competent to hear the revenue appeals and confirment of owners on him by the subsequent notifica­tion cannot cure the defect. According to him the decision relied on by Mr. Shyamkishore Singh is not applicable in the present case as in that case both Mr. Anjappa and Saxena were appointed as District Judges, Grade II though their appointment were subsequently found invalid. But in the present case Mr. Masood was not empowered even by an invalid order to hear the revenue appeals/revisions. In support of his contention Mr.Kumarjit has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab & another reported in AIR 1967 SC 856 . What happen in this case was that one Gurkirpal Singh purporting to act as Consolidation Officer, prepared a draft scheme and published it on November 8, 1961 under section 19 (1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The scheme was confirmed by the Settlement Officer but the Punjab High Court granted stay order and no further proceedings under the Act could be taken. On May 11, 1962 a notification was published in the Gazette purporting to appoint Shri Gurkirpal Singh as Consolidation Officer in respect of the estate Ropalon with effect from 4th of November, 1961. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed before the High Court where it was alleged that there could be no retrospective appointment of a Consolidation Officer. The High Court held that although there could be no retrospective appointment of a Consolidation Officer, the objection could not be sustained because of laches of the appellant. The matter thereafter came before the Sup­reme Court which in the aforessid appeal held that "A person can start acting as Consolidation Officer he is appointed as such. Before he is appointed he haj no authority to exercise any of the functions as Consolidation Officer. What he does purporting to act as Consolidation Officer has no binding force on owners anc' other persons affected in estate by his consolidation scheme. The Govcrii/nem cannot be appointing him retrospective clothe him with authority retrospectively. Before he is appointed he haj no authority to exercise any of the functions as Consolidation Officer. What he does purporting to act as Consolidation Officer has no binding force on owners anc' other persons affected in estate by his consolidation scheme. The Govcrii/nem cannot be appointing him retrospective clothe him with authority retrospectively. This can be done only by .the Legislature subject to the provis­ions of the Constitution." But although the appointment of Gurkirpal Singh as Consoslidation Officer was not approved it was held that such objection cannot be sustained because of laches of the appellant. 9. In the instant case, it has not been alleged that there were laches on the part of the respondents. The respondents raised this question of competence of Mr. Naved Masood before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also accepted the contention of the respondents holding that Mr. Naved Masood was not com­petent to hear the revenue cases before 5th of May 1980. Mr. Shyamkishore Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any authority that such power can be delegated with retrospective effect. 10. So, in view of the decision in AIR 1967 SC 856 (supra), I hold that the delegation of powers of Deputy Commissioner to Mr. Naved Masood with retrospetive effect is not tenable in law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.