The facts giving rise to this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are that late Kunja Behari Singh husband of the present petitioner was in occupation of a plot of land measuring 22' x 10' situated on the eastern bank of the Nambal River,Iraphal by erecting a katcha shed thereon and he was also carrying on some business of cane products in that shed for about 30 years. However, after reclamation of the land Kunja Behari Singh applied for its allotment but no order of allotment was passed during his life time. The petitioner was however continuing the same business on the aforesaid land which was during last survey settlement operation, posted under CS Plot No. 3206 of Municipal Sheet No. 17. Since selling of bamboo and cane products is the only source of the livelihood of the petitioner and her family, the petitioner after the death of her husband approached the authority for allotment of the land in her favour. But the got no favourable response until 16.7.1979 when Sub-Divisional Officer, Imphal West recommended her case for allotment of the aforesaid piece of land in her favour (Annexure 4). The petitioner was, therefore, in expectation of getting the order of allotment. But while she was eagerly waiting for order of allotment she was suddenly served with a summons in connection with an eviction proceeding case bearing No.3 of 1979 and subsequent to that she to her utter surprise came to know that the aforesaid land had already been allotted to Shri Ph Munindra Sharma the respondent No. 1. 2. On further enquiry the petitioner came to know that Deputy Commi­ssioner (Central), Manipur by his order No. DC (C) /8/1108/Rev. dated 16.5.1979 passed the order of allotment in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of respondent No. 1. On coming to know this, the petitioner submi­tted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister, Finance and Revenue for re­considering the matter and staying the eviction proceeding until finalisation of allotment matter. On the basis of the said application the Revenue Department vide its letter dated 2.7.1979 called a report from the Deputy Commissioner (Central), Manipur. But no action thereon was taken. On the basis of the said application the Revenue Department vide its letter dated 2.7.1979 called a report from the Deputy Commissioner (Central), Manipur. But no action thereon was taken. So, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of allotment contained in Annexure A8 before the Revenue Tribunal, who however, dismissed the revision petition on the ground, inter alia, that he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter. Soonafter the order of Revenue Tribunal, the Sub-Deputy Collector (Central) Imphal West again passed an order directing the petitioner to vacate the aforesaid plot of land and also published the order in a local daily paper named 'Ching Tarn' for information and necessary action. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that the father of respondent No. 1 being a UD Assistant in the Secretariate of the Finance Department, Gov­ernment of Manipur he got this order of allotment in a clandestine manner without even filing any application for allotment of this land. It was therefore alleged that the orders contained in Annexure A8 and Annexure A10 are malafide and similarly the order contained in Annexure A9 is equally bad in law and not sustainable. It was further alleged that both the orders contained in Annexure A8 and A10 are outside the purview of Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. 4. It is also averred that as per Rule 9 of the Maoipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land ) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) if there are more than two application for a particular piece of land the allotment has to be made by a lot in favour of the winner. So, the orders con­tained in Annexure AS and A10 alloting the aforesaid land in fovour of the respondent No. 1 are violative of the section 14 of the Manipur Land Reve­nue and Land Reforms Act and the statutory Rules. 5. The respondent No. 1 denied the material averments of the petition by filing counter affidavit and contended further that the statement that the petitioner was in occupation of the land in question over 30 years is nothing but a myth as at the time of filing this writ petition she was only 40 years of age. 5. The respondent No. 1 denied the material averments of the petition by filing counter affidavit and contended further that the statement that the petitioner was in occupation of the land in question over 30 years is nothing but a myth as at the time of filing this writ petition she was only 40 years of age. It has been averred that respondent No. I being a business man he applied for allotment of the land bearing CS Plot No. 3206 of the Sheet No.17 of the Municipality for the purpose of running a business and in pursuance of that application the State Government allotted the aforesaid land appertaining to CS Plot No. 3206 of Sheet No. 17 by order dated 24.4.1979 (Annexure Bl). It is denied that respondent 1 got the allotment order by undue influence, In pursuance of the order of allotment contained in Annexure Bl, the Deputy Commissioner issued order No. DC(C)/8/1105/Rev., dated 16th of May, 1979 (Annexure B2) and as per that order he also paid a premium of Rs. 1.183/-Oii 21.5.79 in respect of the aforesaid land. It is also stated that the Deputy Commissioner (Central) executed necessary Deeds of Allotment on 21.5.79 and although the answering respondent paid the premium the Deputy Commi­ssioner did not deliver possession of the land. 6. The further contention of the respondent No. 1 is that the petitioner filed Original Suit No. (T) 9 of 1980 in the Court of Muttsiff, Imphal for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of the aforesaid land against the State Government and respondent No. 3 challenging the order of allotment. But the suit was dismissed on 5.2.1981 for default. So under no circumstances the petitioner has any locus standi to file the petition and hence it should be rejected. 7. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 also filed a joint counter affidavit whe­rein it was denied that petitioner was in occupation of the land in question for over 30 years and she was carrying on some business thereon. It is however admitted that SDO Imphal vide his letter No. 62/SDO/IW/Sett-NYS/79/1139, dated 16.7.79 initiated a proposal recommending for allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. It is however admitted that SDO Imphal vide his letter No. 62/SDO/IW/Sett-NYS/79/1139, dated 16.7.79 initiated a proposal recommending for allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner. But before receipt of this recommendation from SDO the land was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 1 in consideration of his prayer which was received on 1978 and that the application of the petitioner for allotment of the land was received before this recommendation. It has however been admitted that during enquiry it was found that the petitioner was in occupation of the land in question for over 15 years. But as her such occupation was unauthorised she was rightly evicted therefrom. The land in question being allotted in favour of respondent No. 1, the Deputy Commis­sioner had to execute the Deed of Allotment and he is also required to deliver possession of the land in favour of respondent No. l by evicting the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly served with the summons at Annexure A5. 8. It is further averred that the proposal for allotment of the land in question in favour of respondent was received from the SDO Imphal West as early as in the year 1978 under letter No.92/SDO/IW/Sett. TOMDRO/78/1259 dated 18.12.1978 and thereafter the Government accorded sanction for allot­ment of this land in favour of respondent No. l under order No. 23.6.78 dated 24.4.79. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 16.5.79 contained in Annexure A8 allotted the land in favour of respondent No. 1. So, there is nothing wrong or malafide in the matter of allotment in favour of the respondent No. 1 as alleged by the petitioner. It is also contended that Rule 13 (1) of Manipur Land Revenue etc. (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 (for short Rules) provides that no town land shall be allotted without the prior sanction of the Government. So, the order contained in Annexure A8 was issued after obtaining prior sanction of the Government and as such the order of allotment is a valid one. It is further contended that Rule 9 of the Rules does not apply to the allotment of the land in question. This Rule is only applicable for allotment of the agricultural land. It is, therefore, stated that the land in question was allotted in favour of the respondent No. l as per Rules. So, the petition is devoid of any merit. 9. This Rule is only applicable for allotment of the agricultural land. It is, therefore, stated that the land in question was allotted in favour of the respondent No. l as per Rules. So, the petition is devoid of any merit. 9. So the question which arises for consideration is whether the Deputy Commissioner can allot any land in favour of any person under section 14 (2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of business, where the Governor has been pleased to accord sanction for such allotment. 10. Mr. Priyananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he Deputy Commisioner has transgressed his powers by allotting the land in question under section 14 (2) of the Act. According to him a bare perusal of the section 14 of the Act will make it abundantly clear that the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to allot land for agricultural purpose or for construction of dwelling house under section 14 (1) of the Act, 11. To appreciate the legal position it is desirable to reproduce the section 14 of the Act which reads as under : "14. Allotment of land- (1) The Collector may allot land belonging to the Government for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling houses, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf under this Act; and such rules may provide for allotment of land to persons evicted under section 15. (2) The Administrator shall have power for purpose of public utility on such conditions as may be prescribed, or (b) to entrust the management of any such land of any rights therein to the Gram Panchayat of the Village established under any law for the time being in force." 12. On a plain reading of the section quoted above, it will be seen that the powers of the Deputy Commissioner in the matter of allotment are very much limited and circumscribed. It is clear from the above quoted provisions that section 14 (1) of the Act has empowered the Deputy Commissioner to allot lands belonging to the Government for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling house in accordance with such Rules as may be made in this behalf under this Act, and such Rules may provide for allotment of land to persons evicted under section 15. But section 14(2) of the Act envisa­ges that State Government can allot land belonging to the Govt. for any industry or for any purpose of public utility. It would, therefore, be quite apparent, from provision quoted above, that section 14 has authorised 2 authorities to make allotment of land belonging to the Government. According to section 14 (1) of the Act it is the Deputy Commissioner who is authorised to allot land and according to sub-section (2) it is the Government who is authorised to allot land. 13. Admittedly, the land in question is situate within the town of Imphal. Rule 13 of the Manipur Land Revenue etc. (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) envisages that no town land shall be allotted without the prior sanction of the Administrator. 14. It is clear from the above Rule that in case of allotment of town land the Deputy Commissioner is required to take prior sanction of the Government for allotment of land in favour of any one. Rule 7 of Rules envisages as under : "7. Order of preference for allotment of land for construction of dwelling house. In allotting land for construction of a dwelling house, the Deputy Commissioner shall follow the following order of preference, namely, (i) a landless agricultural worker or an artisan, not owing any house or site for a house; and (ii) any other person not owing any house or site for a house and who intends to build the house for personal inhabitation." 15. So all these provisions make it clear that the Deputy Commissioner while allotting any land under the provision of section 14 (I) of the Act shall have to take sanction of the Government at first and thereafter consider the case of a particular person in the light of the provisions of Rule 7 which deals with the order of preference for allotment of land for construction of dwelling house. It is very much clear from all these provisions that the power of the Deputy Commissioner to allot land are for two purposes (i) for agricu­ltural purposes and (ii) for construction of dwelling house and that he can allot the land only under section 14 (1) of the Act. 16. But Mr.Shyam Kishore Singh,learned Government Advocate assisted by learned counsel Mr. 16. But Mr.Shyam Kishore Singh,learned Government Advocate assisted by learned counsel Mr. T. Nanda Kumar has argued that in the instant case the land in question has actually been allotted by an order dated 24th April, 1979 contained in Annexure A10. To appreciate the contention of learned Govt. Advocate it is necessary to reproduce the Annexure A10 : 'Government of Manipur Secretariat Revenue Department. Order by the Governor Manipur, Imphal, the 24th April, 1979. No. 23/6 78-R: In exercise under section 14 (2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 the Governor of Manipur is pleased to accord sanction to the allotment of land measuring 10 ft x 20 ft under CS Dag 3206 of Sheet No. 17 Imphal Municipality in favour of Shri Ph. Munin-dra Sharma of Thoksom Leikai Imphal as described in Schedule given below." 17. A plain reading of this order clearly shows that it is nothing but the approval of the Government for allotment of the land. According to Mr. Shy am Kishore Annexure A8 dated 16.5.79 is nothing but the communication of the order of allotment by the Deputy Commissioner. I am however, unable to accept this contention of Mr. Shyam Kishore as it has been quite .specifica­lly stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2, 3 and 5 that the statement that Deputy Commissioner (Central) Manipur issued allotment order dated 16.5.79 (Annexure A8) in favour of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the said piece of land is substantially correct. In prargraph 12 of the counter affidavit it has again been stated that Government accorded sanction for the allotment on 24.4.79 which relates to Annexure A10 order. So, in face of clear statement in the counter affidavit it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Shyam Kishore that the Government allotted the land in question in favour of the respondent No. 1 by order Annexure A10. 18. Rule 13(1) requires that a proposal has to be sent to the Government for obtaining sanction. But in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the Deputy Commissioner wrote any letter to the Government for obtaining necessary sanction in respect of the aforesaid land. 18. Rule 13(1) requires that a proposal has to be sent to the Government for obtaining sanction. But in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the Deputy Commissioner wrote any letter to the Government for obtaining necessary sanction in respect of the aforesaid land. Even if, it is accepted that the Deputy Commissioner wrote letter to the Government for obtaining sanction, yet the contention is not acceptable because we cannot alter the legal position. The power conferred to the Deputy Commissioner in this regard is a limited power as stated earlier. The fact that the Government is prepared tobhssa particular person does not change the nature of the power. Rule 6 of the Rules provides that in the case of allotment for agricul­tural purposes, the preference will be given to the person who has been evicted under section 15 of the Act. Again it is ingrained in Rule 7 that in allotting land for construction of a dwelling house the Deputy Commissioner shall give preference to a person not owning any house or site for a house, who intends to build the house for personal habitation. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has no other land excepting the land in question. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is in occupation of this land after reclamation for over 15 years. But there is nothing on record to show that respondent is a landless person. 19. Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has however, argued that the order of allotment cannot be regarded to be a bad or illegal one simply because, the Deputy Commissioner has quoted wrong provision. It is submitted by Mr. Nandakumar that what is required to be seen is whether the Deputy Commissioner has power to allot land and since he has power to allot land under section 14 (1) of the Act such order cannot be regarded to be bad in law. In support of his contention he has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Amritsar Improvement Trust vs. Baldev Inder Singh and S. Baldev Singh Inder Singh & others reported in (1972)1 SCC 165 where the decision in the case of Hukumchand vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 52 1TR 583 was referred. In support of his contention he has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Amritsar Improvement Trust vs. Baldev Inder Singh and S. Baldev Singh Inder Singh & others reported in (1972)1 SCC 165 where the decision in the case of Hukumchand vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 52 1TR 583 was referred. In Hukumchanad Mill case it was held that a wrong reference to the power in which the action was taken by the Government would not per se vitiate that action if it could be justified under same other power under which the Government could lawfully do that act. Time is no dispute that it an authority has a valid power to do a particular act, the fact that it purported to do that act under a provision of law which did not confer power to do that act would not invalidate the act. But this decision is not acceptable to the facts of the present case. If we carefully go through the Annexure AS order it will be found that the land was allotted in favour of the respondent No. l for the purpose of business. On the other hand Annexure B4 Deed of Allotment which was filed by respondent No. 1 will show that the Deputy Commissioner executed the Deed of Allotment in favour of the respondent No. 1 to erect a building thereon to be used for residential purpose. This Annexure B4 further shows that the Deputy Commissioner was pleased to accord to allot land in favour of the respondent No. 1. So, if the recitals of the documents contained in Annexure B4 and Annexure Al0 are carefully examined then it will appear that purposes mentioned in Annexure Al0 is very much contradicted by the purposes mentioned in Annexure B4. In this regard, Mr. Nanda Kumar also placed reliance to a decision rendered in Syendna Taher Saiiuddin vs. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1958 SC 253 . But I have already stated earlier that this is not a case that a wrong provision was quoted. 20. It is next argued by Mr.T.Nanda Kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. l that the validity of an order should be judged on consideration of substance and not in form. But I have already stated earlier that this is not a case that a wrong provision was quoted. 20. It is next argued by Mr.T.Nanda Kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. l that the validity of an order should be judged on consideration of substance and not in form. In support of his contention he has referred to a decision rendered in-the case of P. Balakotaih vs. Union of India reported in AIM 1958 SC 232. But it has already been stated earlier that there is no dispute that if an authority has a valid power to do a parti­cular act, the fact that it purported to do that act under a provision of law which did not confer power to do that act would not invalidate, the act. But this proposition is not applicable in the present case because it is not the contention of the respondent No. 1 that the allotment order was issued under section 14 (1) of the Act. Mr. T.Nanda Kumar has argued that it is the Annexure Al0 which is the order of allotment. But in view of my discussion made earlier, I am unable to hold that Annexure Al0 which is nothing but an approval of the Government can be treated as an order of allotment. 21. It is argued by Mr. Priyananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been specifically contended by the petitioner that the respondent did not tile any application for allotment of this land. But in spite of this specific averment neither the respondent No. 1 nor the other respondents have filed the petition of the respondent No. 1 to snow that respondent No. l actually filed an application before the application of the petitioner for allotment of the and in question. It is true that neither respondent No. l nor the other respondents filed the application of the respondent No. l to show that his application was actually received prior to the receipt of the application of the petitioner. It is not understandable to me why the learned Govt. Advocate did not present the relevant file before this Court to enable this Court to understand to whom the respondent No. 1 actually filed the applica­tion and for what purpose. 22. It is not understandable to me why the learned Govt. Advocate did not present the relevant file before this Court to enable this Court to understand to whom the respondent No. 1 actually filed the applica­tion and for what purpose. 22. The last point argued by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Imphal for decl­aration of title and continuation of possession in respect of tne suit land and that suit was dismissed for default on 5.2.81. It has therefore been contended on behalf of the respondents that in view of this fact that a civil suit was dismissed for default, the present writ petition is not maintainable. But the respondents have neither filed the copy of the plaint nor filed the order where­by the learned Munsiff dismissed that suit. The legal position is that onus lies on a party relying on a earlier order operating as res judicata to establish that the matter in issue in the present writ petition has already been decided finally between the same parties by a Court of competent jurisdiction. So, in absence of any proof in this regard it is difficult to make a finding that the matter was heard and finally decided in the former suit. 23. Mr Priyananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner's case is to be considered in preference to the respondent No. 1 as the petitioner has no land other than the land in question which she has been occupying for a pretty long time. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 1 is a landless person. 24. So, in view of the facts and circumstances particularly the infirmities found in the order of allotment, I am constrained to hold that the order of allotment containing Annexure A8 is bad in law. Both the orders viz Annexure A8 and Annexure A10 are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Government for re-consideration. Until the matter is finally disposed of by the Government status quo in respect of the land in question shall be maintained. With the above direction and observation the writ petition is allowed. Under the circumstances I pass no order as to cost.