These two civil rules raises common question of law and facts and as such they are being disposed by this common order. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions may be briefly recited. The present dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 36 (Ingkhol) under Dag Nos. 149, 150 and 151 of Village No.59 (Oinam Thingel) of 1908-09 Survey Operation corresponding to Dag No. 167 of Village No.59 (Oinam Thingel) of 1937-38 Survey Operation corresponding to Dag No.225 of Village No.59 (Oinam Thingel) of 1960 Survey Operation. It has been stated that the deity Mayengbam Lairembi alias Yaoroibi Lairembi has been possessing the said land as owner since many centuries. It is further stated that the Meiteis even after embracing Hinduism continued to worship such deity by performing customary ceremony. During the reign of Lainingthou Loyamba, he distributed the duties of his subjects regarding the administration and management of the properties of Umanglais including the duties to perform the customary rites and rituals. The deities are performed through the members of Mayengbam Sagei. In otherwords, the Mayengbam Sagei are Shebaits and through these Shebaits Mayengbam Sagei, the deities are worshipped. The deity also known as Mayengbam Lairembi. It is stated that the members of Mayengbam Sagei constructed the temple of the deity in the said Ingkhol and Laiharaoba and other ceremonies of the deity are worshipped in the land. 3. With the increase of population and corresponding scarcity of land, the members of Mayengbam Sagei apprehended that the ownership of the said land may be encroached upon by the people living in the vicinity and therefore, sometime on 8.7.76, the member of the Mayengam Sagei through Mayengbam Tolchou Singh, the present appellant, submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner (Central) for allowing the members of Mayengbam Sagei to pay revenue regularly in respect of the land in question over which the temple is situated. The said application was recommended by SDO/Imphal West by its letter dated 20th September, 1976. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Imphal considered the application and treated the said application as an application for allotment of the land and after considering the matter allotted the said land measuring 36 acre to the deity by its order dated 26th Oct' 76. The said application was recommended by SDO/Imphal West by its letter dated 20th September, 1976. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Imphal considered the application and treated the said application as an application for allotment of the land and after considering the matter allotted the said land measuring 36 acre to the deity by its order dated 26th Oct' 76. It is stated that pursuant to the allotment the deed of allotment was executed on 24.12,76 between one Mayengbam Haimo Singh (respondent No.4) and the appellants Shri Mayengbam Tolchou Singh, representing the Shebaits and Mayengbam Yaima Singh, representing the deity and the Deputy Commissioner (Central). After the execution of the registered deed of allotment and the payment of premium, a patta bearing No.59/642 has been prepared in the name of the deity. In the meantime, a review application has been filed for review of allotment order before the Deputy Commissioner which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by its order dated 8.10.87 refusing to review the allotment order passed by his predecessor. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.4 filed a revision petition against the order dated 8.10.87 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner refusing the review of allotment order and also against the allotment order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.10.76 to the Presiding Officer, Revenue Tribunal, Manipur on the ground that he was not aware of the existence of the allotment orders till August, 1987 and also the said orders are void. 4. The learned Presiding Officer, Revenue Tribunal registered the revision petition as Tribunal Revenue Revision Case No.50 of 1987. The learned Tribunal also registered an Appeal Case No.7 of 1987 against the allotment order dated 26.10.76. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard the revision petition also with appeal Case No.7 of 1987 as the said matters involve the same question of facts and law. The learned Tribunal disposed the two petitions by common judgment dated 4.5.88. The learned Tribunal disposed of the petitions allowing the petitions and set aside both the orders dated 8.10.87 and 26.10.76 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner. Hence the present writ petitions. 5.1 have heard Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondents 1,2 and 3 and Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 6. Hence the present writ petitions. 5.1 have heard Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondents 1,2 and 3 and Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 6. Before I advert further on other points urged by the respective counsel, I may at this stage point out that the learned Revenue Tribunal allowing the application inter alia on the ground that deity is not an Indian national as visualised under Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules, 1962 and therefore, allotment of land in favour of deity is void ab-initio. This finding is recorded in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment of learned Tribunal. Mr. Shyamakishore, learned Senior Govt. Advocate at the outset contended that this finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse in view of the Explanation given in Rule 3 (c) of the Rules. 7. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the findings of the learned Revenue Tribunal that the deity not being a citizen of India is not entitle to get allotment is not only perverse but acted in malafide. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that deity is a juristic person and the members of Mayengbam Sagei are Indian national and therefore, they are entitled to get allotment of land under section 14(1) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. 8. As against this, Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 contended that deity is not a citizen of India and even if assuming that the disputed land is a Govt. land, it cannot be allotted to a deity and therefore, the order dated 26.10.76 allotting the land to a deity is bad and unsustainable in law being made in contravention of the mandatory provision of the Rule 3 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. 9. To decide the aforesaid contentious issues, the following question has been framed: Whether Meitei Hindu deity is an Indian national as visualised under Rule 3 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the Rules) and can be allotted land under sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act)? 10. 10. To decide the aforesaid question posed for determination, it would be necessary to quote the provision of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules in extenso. 11. Sub-section (1) section 14 reads : “14. Allotment of land: (l)the Deputy Commissioner may allot land belonging to the Govt. 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 provided for allotment of land to persons evicted under section 15.” 12. Further, Rule 3 of the Rules and Explanation there under which has an important bearing for proper adjudication of the case in hand reads: “3, No one who is not an Indian national shall be eligible for allotment of land under section 14. Explanation: For the purposes of this rule a person shall be deemed to be an Indian national: ......... (c) In the case of a firm or other association of individuals, only if all the partners of the firm or members of the association are citizens of India.”(underline is mine) 13. Under sub-section (1) of section 14, the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to allot land belonging to the Govt. for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling houses, in accordance with such rules as may be made in that behalf. Therefore, power under sub-section (1) of section 14 has to be exercised in accordance with the Rule 3 of the Rules. In otherwords, sub-section (1) of section 14 has to be read together with Rule 3 of the Rules. 14. Sub-section (42) of the section 3 of General Clauses ,Act 1897 defines person as under: “Person shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.” 15. By now it is well settled principle of law that law must be interpreted with pragmatism to further public welfare and to advance the cause of the meaning to make it more meaningful and in a narrow and pedantic sense. 16. By now it is well settled principle of law that law must be interpreted with pragmatism to further public welfare and to advance the cause of the meaning to make it more meaningful and in a narrow and pedantic sense. 16. In a recent decision in Ashok Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of UP & others and Vidya Sagar Gupta & others vs. State of UP & others (1997) 5 SCC 201 , it was pointed out by the Apex Court in pages 243-244 of its judgment as under: “In the interpretation of the Constitution, words of width are both a frame work of concepts and means to achieve the goals in the Preamble. Concepts may keep changing to expand and elongate the rights. Constitutional issues are not solved by mere appeal to the meaning of the words without an acceptance to the line of their growth. The Judges, therefore, should respond to the human situations to meet the felt necessities of the time and social needs; make meaningful the right to life and give effect to the constitution and the will of the legislature. The Supreme Court as the vehicle of transforming the nation's life should respond to the nation's needs interpret the law with pragmatism to further public welfare to make the constitutional animations a reality and interpret the Constitution broadly and liberally enabling the citizens to enjoy the rights.” 17. Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, the Meitei Hindu deity Mayengbam Lairembi alias Yaoroibi Lairembi has been worshipped through Shebaits Mayengbam Sagei. In the instant case, the application has been made by the members of Mayengbam Sagei for allowing the said deity to pay revenue regularly in respect of the land an pursuant to the said application, the allotment has been made on 26th October, 1976 alloting the said land to the deity measuring, 36 acre. Therefore, it is in this sense, the deity is a juristic person and an Indian national as visualised under Rule 3 of the Rules. 18. In the instant case, the words 'or members of the association' employed in Rule 3 (c) of the Rules would make it abundantly clear that if the members of the association are citizens of India, they are entitle to get allotment under section 14 (1) of the Act. 18. In the instant case, the words 'or members of the association' employed in Rule 3 (c) of the Rules would make it abundantly clear that if the members of the association are citizens of India, they are entitle to get allotment under section 14 (1) of the Act. As already said, the Meitei deity Mayengbam Lairembi alias Yaoroibi Lairembi has been worshipped through the Shebaits, Mayengbem Sagei. In other words, Shebaits are the Manager of the deity and therefore, deity is a juristic person and they are entitled to get allotment of land under sub-section (1) of section 14. 19. Hindu deities are nothing but an association of Shebaits. Deities are run by the Shebaits for the benefit of the worshipers. The reason being that Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties. The gift of the properties to the idol is not to confer any benefit on God, but to acquire spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desire to worship. It is in this sense that deity is a juristic person. 20. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Ahmedabad vs. Smti Indira Balkrishna, AIR 1960 SC1172, while interpreting the meaning of association of persons employed under section 3 of the Income Tax Act, it was pointed out by the Apex Court as under : “ 'An association of persons' must be one in which two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action, and as the words occur in a section which imposes a tax on income, the association must be one the object of which is to produce income, profits or gains.” 21.In Deoki Nandan vs. Murlihar & others, AIR 1957 SC 133 , it was pointed out by the Apex Court as under: “Under the Hindu law, an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and the properties endowed for the institution vest in it. But it does not follow from this that it is to be regarded as the beneficial owner of the endowment. It is only in an ideal sense that the idol is the owner of the endowed properties and it cannot have any beneficial interest in the endowment.” 22. Despite thfe aforesaid, I may also disposed of some of the arguments advanced by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Mr. It is only in an ideal sense that the idol is the owner of the endowed properties and it cannot have any beneficial interest in the endowment.” 22. Despite thfe aforesaid, I may also disposed of some of the arguments advanced by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Mr. Nilamani Singh referring to the application request for payment of premium for an area of 36 acre on the ground that deity Mayengbam Lairembi has been recorded in the column No.3 of the Chitha and the deity has been performed by Mayengbam Sagei. It is contended by Mr. Nilamani that by the aforesaid application, no prayer has been made for allotment of the lana on the other hand, counsel contended that the recording of the name of deity in column 3 of Chitha and entry in the Jamabandi are not proof of title. Form the application annexed as Annexure 5, it clearly appears that the respondent No.4 Shri Mayengbam Haimo Singh is one of the signatories. Also from the recommenation dated 20th Sept 97 of the SDO, Imphal West Manipur (Annexure A6), it clearly appears that the SDO has recommended the application in which respondent No.4 is one of the signatories as Shebaits of the Mayengbam Lairembi. In this connection, Mr. Nilamani Singh has referred to the following decision of the Apex Court: (a) In Guru Amarjit Singh vs. Rattan Chand & others, (1993) 4 SCC 349 , it was pointed out by the Apex Court in para 2 that entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of the title. They are only statements for revenue purpose. (b) In Durga Das vs. Collector, (1996) 5 SCC 618 , it was pointed out by the Apex Court in para 2 that mutation entries do not confer any title to the property. (c) In Sawarni (Smti) vs. Inder Kaur (Smti) & others, (1996) 6 SCC 223 . It was pointed out that the mutation of name in revenue records does not create or extinguish the title nor has any presumptive value on title. It only entitles the person concerned to pay land revenue. 23. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court. The above settled points however, is outside the purview of this case. This Court has already formulated the points for decision and it has been answered in the aforesaid paragraphs. 24. It only entitles the person concerned to pay land revenue. 23. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court. The above settled points however, is outside the purview of this case. This Court has already formulated the points for decision and it has been answered in the aforesaid paragraphs. 24. Next, Mr. Nilamani Singh faintly contended that the land in question has been using by the 4th respondent, as of right and running a school over the said land and the learned Deputy Commissioner has allotted the land without holding any kind of enquiry. According to him, since the land in question is -a-part of holding of the 4th respondent, if Govt. wanted to allot land for any public purpose, then the land has to be acquired as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and any action of the Govt. in contravention of the provision of the Land Acquisition Act is illegal and done without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. This submission is not well founded because under sub-section (1) of section 14, the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to allot land belonging to the Govt.. 25. Lastly, Mr. Nilamani contended that Meitei deity practising by Meities from time immemorial before embracing Hinduism are not juristic person and they are not entitled to allotment of land under the Act and Rules. This submission is misplaced. It is an admitted fact that Meiteis have 'now embraced Hinduism and they are governed by the Hindu laws. 26. For the reasons aforestated, the findings of the learned Revenue Tribunal in paragraphs 15 and 16 of its judgment and order dated 4.5.88 that the deity is not a juristic person and they are not entitled to get allotment under section 14 (i) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules are perverse and hereby set aside. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are allowed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.