Achom Angou Singh v. State of Manipur — 1999 DIGILAW 59 (GAU)

The Government order dated Imphal, the 23rd January, 1993 bearing No.21/ 85/86-R allotting the land measuring 0.014 Acre under Plot No.9 Sheet No. 17 Imphal Municipality of the Dag No.3212 in favour of Sri Laishram Gourachand Singh, the 2nd respondent herein, for shop site purposes subject to keeping road side reserved land as in Annexure A/14 is the subject matter under challenge in this writ petition. A prayer has been made by the petitioner in this writ petition for striking down the provision of section 14 (2) (a) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 and for declaring it as an unconstitutional. 2. The original writ petitioner, Shri Achom Angou Singh alias Angouba Singh (now deceased) represented by his legal heirs/4 sons, reflected in the cause title filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned order of 23rd January, 1993 as in Annexure A/14 to the writ petition. 3. Supporting the case of the writ petitioner, Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, the learned Senior Advocate contended inter alia, that the writ petitioner Shri Achom Angou Singh (now deceased) along with and assisted by his sons, Jiad been doing his business in the Khwairamband Bazar (comprising now the Thangal Bazar and Paona Bazar) in the heart of the industrial area of Imphal Town for the last about 40 years; that the respondent No.2, Shri Laishram Gourachand Singh is a very wealthy person having acquired several valuable shop sites within the industrial area of Imphal Town, standing either in his name or in the name of 2 his family members, besides his own residential/homestead land and buildings standing thereon and many agricultural lands, and some of the shop sites lying in the industrial area of Imphal Town acquired by the respondent No.2 either in his name or in the name of his family members as highlighted in the documents marked as Annexure A/1, Annexure A/2, Annexure A/3 and Annexure A/4 to the writ petition; that the respondent No.3 Smti Laishram Ongbi Prabhabati Devi a who is a Government servant employed in the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department of the Govt. of Manipur for the last about 10 years is the daughter-in-law of the respondent No.2, while the respondent No.4 Shri L. Dipoochand Singh, a minor aged about 13 years is the grand son of the respondent No.2 and both of them are living with the respondent No.2 at the Kaisampat Leimajam Leikai, within the Imphal Municipality in whose favour the said lands had been b allotted to them as reflected in the aforesaid documents marked as Annexure A/1, A/2, A/3 and A/4 respectively. According to Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel, the writ petitioner had challenged the illegal and unconstitutional allotment of the land measuring 0.014 Acre underplot No.9, Sheet No. 17 of Imphal Municipality of Dag No.3212 which is herein after referred to as disputed land in favour of the respondent No.2 under the impugned order/orders of the State Government bearing No.21/85/86-R dated 23rd January, 1993 (Annexure A/14), which was made in the secrecy of office file and issued behind the back of the writ petitioner. It is also argued by Mr. It is also argued by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel that the disputed land is one of the 14 shop site plots lying within the road side of the public road now called Paona Road, which vested in and belonged to the Imphal Municipal Board under section 62 of the erstwhile Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as extended to the State of Manipur and the writ petitioner has no shop site and shop building within the industrial area of Imphal Town except the disputed land and his shop building standing thereon and as such on his application made during his life time, the Imphal Municipal Board allotted the disputed land (being Plot No.9 out of the 14 counting from the North) for the construction of his shop building in pursuance of the Board's Resolution No.4 dated 20th February, 1962 and accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.3,829.50 as premium for the allotment made to him as required under the related work order and further by virtue of the related order issued by the Imphal Municipality the petitioner has been allowed to construct his shop building over the disputed land vide, office order/memo bearing No.IM/25(II)/ 56-62 dated 14th March, 1962 / (Annexure A/5) and the office memo/order No.IM/25(II)/62 dated 14th October, 1963 (Annexure A/6 to the writ petition) and in consideration of the payment of the said premium, the disputed land with an area of 53' x 11 was allotted to the petitioner on lease by the Imphal Municipal Board for the purpose of running his business in the shop building to be constructed by him at his own cost on the disputed land and the Lease Agreement dated 26th January, 1964 was executed by and between the Chairman, Imphal Municipal Board and the petitioner as reflected in the document marked as Annexure A/7 to the writ petition and, that the said lease was initially for a period of 11 months and was renewable on the expiry of the term and, after the execution of the said Lease Agreement, the petitioner took possession of the disputed land on 26th January, 1964 and constructed a permanent shop building covering the entire disputed land at the huge cost on the condition that the petitioner as an allottee should be the owner of such shop building and that the petitioner assisted by his 4 sons mentioned above has been carrying his business as Hindu Joint Family firms such as 'Pa Sa Enterprises' in the shop building constructed by him on the disputed land. It is also urged that the lease of the disputed land was not formally extended by making and executing any further Lease Agreement but the petitioner has been paying the due rents for the disputed land to the office of the Imphal Municipal Board which has been receiving the same from the petitioner from month to month or from time to time as and when necessary notice or notices was/were given by the office and the said lease is still continuing and/or deemed to be continued still in favour of the petitioner as the name of the petitioner was recorded initially as the lessee of the disputed land in the related records of the Imphal Municipal Board and subsequently when the disputed land was bifurcated as Plot No.9A and Plot No.9B, the former was recorded in favour of the petitioner and by mutual agreement later Plot No.9B was recorded in favour of his son Shri Achom Indrajit Singh in the Imphal Municipal Register or Book and that the petitioner has never transferred his lease hold of the disputed land and also "his ownership of the shop building constructed by him thereon to any other person whomsoever. Mr. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel went on to contend that on the false allegation and misrepresentation made by the respondent Nos 2, 3 and 4 sometimes in July, 1992 about their having become the owners of the lease hold of the disputed land and the shop building thereon, the Superintendent of Police, Imphal and his subordinate police officers asked the petitioner and his sons to vacate the disputed land and the shop building thereon in favour of the respondent No.2 and having no alternative, the petitioner instituted a suit against the respondent Nos 3 and 4 and obtained an order of temporary injunction dated 25th August, 1992 passed in Judicial Misc Case No.85 of 1992 arising out of Original Suit No.28 of 1992 restraining the respondent Nos 3 and 4 and their agents and privies including the respondent No.2 from entering into the disputed land and the shop building standing thereon and that when the Court of the Additional District Judge, Manipur East passed a stay order of 12th November, 1992 in Civil Appeal Case No. 17 of 1992 on the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos 3 and 4 against the above mentioned interim order for temporary injunction the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.27 of 1992 before this Court, in which this Court passed an order on 10th December, 1992 setting aside the stay order of the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur East and that, subsequently the said suit being Original Suit No.28 of 1992 having been found to have suffered from formal defects, the same was withdrawn on 15th January, 1993 with liberty to file a fresh suit and thereafter on 18th January,1993 the petitioner instituted Original Suit No.5 of 1993 in the Court of the Munsiff, Imphal and obtained an order for temporary injunction dated 18th January, 1993 passed in Judicial Misc Case No.4 of 1993 whereby the status quo of the disputed land and shop building thereon as on the date of filing the application for temporary injunction is to be maintained and the stay order of 18th January, 1993 passed by the Court of Munsiff, Imphal still stands and accordingly the petitioner along with his sons has still been retaining actual possession and use occupation and enjoyment of the shop building standing on the disputed land. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that in the aforesaid Original Suit No.5 of 1993, the respondent Nos 3 and 4 set up the title of the respondent No.2 in respect of the shop building constructed on the disputed land and also alleged an oral transfer of the building by the respondent No.2 to the respondent Nos 3 and 4 without mentioning the nature, date and consideration for such alleged transfer and also without any allegation of a valid transfer of the shop building by the petitioner to the respondent No.2; apart from it, the Govt. of Manipur made allotment of 11 plots, excluding 3 of which the disputed plot is one out of the aforementioned 14 shop site plots situated in between the Paona Road and the Women's Market of Laxmi Bazar to the persons or their privies who were earlier allotted the lease hold right by the Imphal Municipal Board under a related order of 6th June, 1986 of the Secretariat Revenue Department and the said allotment order speaks about the allotment of a shop site plot under Dag No.3212 measuring 0.014 Acre was allotted to L. Damayanti Devi, Sushila Devi and Rita Devi who are the daughters of the respondent No.2 under the aforesaid allotment order as seen in the document marked as Annexure A/11 to the writ petition. According to Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel, the petitioner also filed an application for formal allotment of the disputed land to him to the address of the Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur on 8th August, 1991 which was registered as Petition No. 160/DLR (Pt) dated 8th August, 1991, since the disputed land is under new ^ Survey and Settlement Operation by the Settlement Department and the petitioner was informed by the office of the Director of Settlement and Land Records that his application would be forwarded to the State Govt. for consideration but it is not known whether the said application had at all been forwarded to the State Govt. or not and whether it was at all considered by the State Govt. and as such the petitioner made another application dated 3rd January, 1992 to the Revenue e Minister, Govt. for consideration but it is not known whether the said application had at all been forwarded to the State Govt. or not and whether it was at all considered by the State Govt. and as such the petitioner made another application dated 3rd January, 1992 to the Revenue e Minister, Govt. of Manipur for making formal allotment of the disputed land to the petitioner by way of regularising his lease hold of the disputed land but there was no response from the State Govt. and it appears that the same has never been considered by the State Govt. . Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel argued that the respondents have failed to exercise its discretion and power conferred upon it in not considering the representations and applications of the writ petitioner for allotment of the said disputed land. It is also contended by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel that sometime in June, 1993 the respondent No. 2 sent a copy of his Caveat to the petitioner regarding the allotment order dated 23rd January, 1993 in respect of the disputed land and on a search and enquiry made by the petitioner he obtained on 17th June, 1993 a copy of the impugned allotment order bearing No.21/85/86-R dated 23rd January, 1993 of the Secretariat Revenue Department allotting the disputed land to the respondent No.2 under section 14 (2) (a) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act of I960, read with Rule 18 of the MLR and LR (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962"and the strip of land under Dag No.3212, on a part of which the disputed land is situated, lies within 15 rrfeters of the public road named Paona ^ Road in the Imphal Town and is a part and parcel of the road side of the said public road. According to Mr. A. Nilamani Singh the said strip of land including the disputed land became vested in and belonged to the Imphal Municipal Board under section 62 (1) (a) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as extended to Manipur read with section 59 (1) (a) of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1976 and there was never any notification issued by the State Govt. A. Nilamani Singh the said strip of land including the disputed land became vested in and belonged to the Imphal Municipal Board under section 62 (1) (a) of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as extended to Manipur read with section 59 (1) (a) of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1976 and there was never any notification issued by the State Govt. in Official Gazette directing that the said strip of land including the disputed land should cease to be so vested in or to belong to the Imphal Municipal Board and moreover, the impugned allotment order of 23rd January, 1993 as in Annexure A/14, which was made in the secrecy of the official file and the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, improper and unconstitutional. The learned counsel also submitted that the provision of section 14 (2) (a) of the MLR and LR Act 1960 is ultra vires and unconstitutional and that it has conferred unbridled and unguided powers on the State Govt. to allot land belonging to the Govt. while laying down any guidelines, criteria and principles to govern such allotment for those called purpose of 'industry' which is taken by the State Govt. to be wide enough to include any sort of 'business'. It is also argued that the respondent No.2 has been duly and unjustly been allowed by the State Govt. to steal an undeserved march over the petitioner by having recourse to executive discrimination knowing fully well about the pendency of the civil suit instituted by the petitioner and the status quo order of the competent civil Court thus, making in conspiracy amongst the competent authority and the respondent Nos 2 and 4 in making allotment of the disputed land to and in favour of the respondent No.2 and as such the impugned order of allotment is made malafide; in sheer abuse of executive power and in utter disregard to the legitimate claim of the petitioner. Mr. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel also submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the writ petitioner Shri Achom Angou Singh died on 14th July, 1997 at his residence and accordingly, his 4 sons mentioned above filed an application for their substitution and for proceeding with the writ petition by contending inter alia, that the original writ petitioner and his 4 sons are all Hindus of the Dayabhaga School and during his life time, he and his said sons had been carrying on their joint family business in the multi-storeyed building constructed on the disputed land mentioned in the writ petition and at present these 4 sons have been carrying on the said business thereafter his death and on his death, all his rights, title and interest in respect of the disputed land and the building standing thereon have devolved to the said 4 sons along with the management and running of their joint family business run in the said building and apart from this the writ petitioner and his 4 sons had made application dated 6th May, 1992 to the Revenue Minister, Govt. of Manipur for allotment of the disputed land to the petitioner and to them (four sons) by way of regularising the allotment thereof by the Imphal Municipal B card to the original writ petitioner. 4. The case of the writ petitioner is contested by the respondents by filing their counter affidavits. Mr. RK Sanajaoba Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dinesh Sharma/learned counsel for the respondent Nos 2 to 4 contended that the shop site mentioned at SI Nos 2 and 3 in para 2 of the writ petition are one and the same shop site and the documents at Arinexures A/1 and A/2 do not reflect upto date entries inasmuch as the name of Shri Laishram Saratkumar Singh, son of L. Gourachand Singh, the respondent No.2 is recorded as pattadar in respect of the Patta No.315 (old)/352 (new), Imphal Municipality at present and the shop site at SI. No. 4 are recorded in the names of the daughters of the respondent No.2 who are all married and have their separate establishments. The learned senior counsel also highlighted the fact that the 2nd respondent had a humble beginning in life who had been suffering and desparate in search of job and later on, abandoning the hope for Govt. No. 4 are recorded in the names of the daughters of the respondent No.2 who are all married and have their separate establishments. The learned senior counsel also highlighted the fact that the 2nd respondent had a humble beginning in life who had been suffering and desparate in search of job and later on, abandoning the hope for Govt. job/service, the 2nd respondent started a new leaf of life as a runner, attendant and helper in a shop for some time and thereafter with the savings from his allowance, the 2nd respondent started business with one partner but in or about the year 1953 he separated from his b partner and opened his own shop at Maxuel Bazar where the writ petitioner joined him and worked as his salesman on payment of wages. It is also contended that while the writ petitioner was working in the shop of 2nd respondent on wage basis, the Imphal Municipality, in or about 1961 proposed for opening of a row of 14 shops or 14 plots on the vacant State land forming the Eastern portion of Laxmi Bazar and each plot measured 53' East to West and North to South and that the writ petitioner was selected for the purpose of Plot No.9 while other 13 applicants were selected for the other 13 plots and the said plot No. 9 corresponds to and co-extensive with the Shop No.9A and 9B; that under the related terms and conditions, a selectee should construct a two storeyed pucca building as per specification to be provided by the Imphal Municipality; that the petitioner was then financially not in a position to defray the cost for construction of the stipulated two storeyed building and consequently, the allotment of the said Plot No.9 to him was likely to be cancelled and having no alternative, the writ petitioner and his eldest son Shri A. Indrajit Singh approached the 2nd respondent for help and requested the respondent No.2 to construct with his own money on the disputed land with the terms and conditions that the building constructed by the 2nd respondent on the disputed land with his money would be his property until the cost of construction thereof was repaid by the petitioner and his sons and, the petitioner by virtue of his being the selectee as aforesaid would occupy the ground floor room, and the petitioner would be at liberty to pay back the entire cost of construction of the building to the 2nd respondent at some reasonable future date and in that event the ownership of the said building would be transferred to the writ petitioner, and, until then, the 2nd respondent would continue to be the owner of the entire building and, the upper storey thereof would be enjoyed by the second respondent and again, if the petitioner failed to make such repayment, he would transfer all his Municipal rights and privileges in respect of the shop building to the 2nd respondent, that, the said request was acceded by the 2nd respondent and accordingly, he started construction of the stipulated building in the year 1964 and the building constructed by the 2nd respondent covered both Shop No.9A and Shop No.9B and the said construction of the building was completed some time in the year 1970 and the 2nd respondent has expended a sum of about Rs.60,000 (Rupees sixty thousand) for the said construction and as per the said agreement the said building belongs to the 2nd respondent but the writ petitioner, however did not, till 1974 and thereafter also does not pay back the cost of construction of the said building to the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the 2nd respondent continued to remain the owner of this two storeyed building. It is also submitted by Mr. RK Sanajaoba Singh, learned senior counsel that in the beginning of 1990 the respondent No.2 discovered the following facts : “(a) The petitioner submitted to the Imphal Municipal Board a transfer application dated 16.7.1977 in the standard form prescribed by the Imphal Municipality for transfer of Shop No.9A in favour of Sri Konjengbam Tombi Singh. It was registered as Case No. 10 of 1977-78. The request was allowed on 16.7.1977 and mutation in the name of the transferee was affected. (b) Shri Achom Indrajit Singh son of the petitioner made a similar transfer application in respect of Shop No.9B in favour of Shri Konjengbam Tombi Singh. In this transaction the petitioner was a witness. The request was allowed on 11.5.1979 vide, Municipal Transfer Case No. 4 of 1979. (c) In Municipal Case No. 17 and 18 of 1984 the said Shri Konjengbam Tombi Singh submitted transfer application 22.8.1984 in respect of transfer of Shop No.9A and Shop No.9B to Shri Sapam Ibochouba Singh son of Sri S. Mani Singh. In this connection the petitioner was an attesting witness. The name of Shri Sapam Ibochouba Singh was recorded as holder in respect of both the shops bearing Shop No. 9 A and Shop No. 9B.” 5. According to Mr. In this connection the petitioner was an attesting witness. The name of Shri Sapam Ibochouba Singh was recorded as holder in respect of both the shops bearing Shop No. 9 A and Shop No. 9B.” 5. According to Mr. RK Sanajaoba Singh, learned senior counsel, these transactions were done without the knowledge on the 2nd respondent and in view of the developing situations, the 2nd respondent approached Shri Sapam Ibochouba Singh and got the said Shop No.9A mutated in the municipal records in the name of the respondent No.4 vide related orders dated 24th August, 1990 in Municipal Case No. 13 of 1990 and Shop No.9B in the name of respondent No.3 vide MC No. 14/90 and at the time of the above mentioned mutations, the c respondent Nos 2,3 and 4 were members of Joint Dayabhaga Hindu Family of which the 2nd respondent was the Patriarch and Head of the joint family and all expenses for the above mutation were borne from the joint fund of the family and that subsequent to the recording of the names of respondent Nos 3 and 4, the 2nd respondent added three more storeyed on the standing shop building and the same is a five storeyed building and the petitioner has already left the shop J building time back, It is also submitted that Shri A, Indrajit Singh and Pawan Kumar Jain vacated the shop building and the respondent Nos 2, 3 and 4 took possession of the same but Shri Achom Sachi Kumar Singh, son of the petitioner did not vacate the room/shop and he has never been the tenant of respondent Nos 2,3 and 4 and as such he has no right or title to the disputed land and he has become a trespasser on the disputed land and accordingly, the said respondents filed Original Suit No.14 of 1993 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge No.l, Manipur East for eviction of said Shri A. Sachikumar Singh and the suit is still pending. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that vesting of property in the Municipality under section 62 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 read with section 59 of the Imphal Municipality Act, 1976 mean that such property \i should be under the direction, management and control of the Imphal Municipal Board and such vesting does not mean that the land had ceased to belong to the Govt. . . Supporting this submission Mr. RK Sanajaoba Singh, learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of UP vs. Ata Mohd reported in AIR 1980 SC 1785 and contended that the question as to competency of the Govt. to exercise rights over lands belonging to the Govt. remains unaffected although the rights of direction, management and control over the shop buildings constructed thereon have been vested to the Imphal Municipal Board. The learned counsel also argued that the Govt. have now given allotment of the disputed land where Shop Nos 9A and 9B to and in favour of the respondent No.2 prior to the filing of this writ petition and the possession of the allotted land had already been handed over to the 2nd respondent by the Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer vide, related certificate of delivery of possession dated 30th January, 1993 as in Annexure C/10 to the counter affidavit after the requisite deed of allotment of town land dated 29th January, 1993 had been duly executed and registered and, preparation of patta in respect of the disputed land and, apart from it, the 2nd respondent had paid land revenue for the year 1993. The learned counsel also argued that there is no specific provision under the Act and Rules and wide circulation of notice for the purpose of allotment of town land is essential and such omissions to make publication of notice shall not vitiate allotment of land under section 14 (2) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 and apart from it, Imphal Municipality could not and did not give allotment of the mentioned land by way of lease or otherwise and as a matter of fact there was no valid lease but the alleged agreement entered into between Imphal Municipal Board and the writ petitioner cannot be a lease within the meaning of section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Learned senior counsel Mr. RK Sanajaoba Singh also argued that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the writ petitioner died and as such the right claimed by the petitioner was personal to him which has not survived to his said 4 sons or heirs and as such the writ petition is not only maintainable but also has become infructuous. 6. Mr. Nimai Chand Singh, learned Addl Govt. 6. Mr. Nimai Chand Singh, learned Addl Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-respondent No.l at the hearing in his usual frankness contended that a piece of Govt. land lying along side the Western boundary of the road, now known as Paona Bazar Road, running North to South, formed the Eastern part of Laxmi Bazar, Imphal and this piece of land is hereinafter referred to as the said land and that in the year 1961, when the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, was introduced in Manipur (then Union Territory) the said land fell within the purview and extent of Imphal Municipality and, by virtue of section.62 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956, the said land had became vested in the Imphal Municipal Board and this Board could exercise power by way of 'direct, management and control' over the same and accordingly, the Imphal Municipal Board managed to get 14 shop buildings constructed on the said land and these buildings stand one after another North to South and initially, the Northern most building was known as Shop No.l and the next Southern building as Shop No.2 and Shop No. 14 which is the Southern most building and subsequently, each building was converted into two shops, the Eastern portion being 'A' part and the Western portion being 'B' part as for an instance, Shop No.l A, Shop No. IB, Shop No.2A and Shop No.2B etc etc and, all these were done for the purpose of the realisation of Municipal taxes, fees etc and the names of the holders of these shops have been kept recorded in the Municipal records as holders/lessees of these shops and the transfers and the mutations, in respect of the shops have also been affected by the Imphal Municipal Board in accordance with the procedure prescribed and, these records have been kept and maintained as Municipal records. According to learned Addl Govt. Advocate such vesting of rights in favour of the Imphal Municipal Board enabling the Board to do acts and deeds within the meaning of 'direction, management and control' did not divest the State of Manipur of its ownership over the same and as such the State Govt. According to learned Addl Govt. Advocate such vesting of rights in favour of the Imphal Municipal Board enabling the Board to do acts and deeds within the meaning of 'direction, management and control' did not divest the State of Manipur of its ownership over the same and as such the State Govt. was not incapacitated to make allotment of the whole or a part of the said land in favour of eligible persons without abridging the Municipal interests, rights and duties as envisaged under section 62 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 as extended to the State of Manipur. It is also argued by the learned Addl Govt. Advocate that a number of subsequent mutations have also been affected from one man to another in respect of some of these 14 shops and the State Govt. in exercise of powers conferred upon it by section 14 (2) of the MLR and LR Act, 1'960 had given allotment in respect of the said 14 plots in favour of those who were recorded as Municipal shop holders at the relevant time of allotment as the State Govt. at the time of allotment, had taken the view that the allotment of these plots to the non-holders of these buildings will not be advisable nor reasonable and that allotment of each plot in favour of the holders/ lessees or the shop building standing thereon will be fair, proper, reasonable and equitable and such allotment shall not cause any prejudice to any one. It is also argued by the learned Addl Govt. Advocate that at the material times the names of the respondent Nos 3 and 4 were recorded as holders/lessees of Shop Nos 9A and 9B and they submitted an application to the authority concerned that the respondent No.2 is the father-in-law of respondent No. 3 and grand father of the respondent No.4 and they had no objection to the allotment as prayed for by the respondent No.2 in respect of the disputed land and in that view of the matter the allotment was granted in respect of the disputed land in favour of the respondent No.2 and as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the main allotment order. 7. Replying to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. 7. Replying to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, now represented by his sons/legal heirs contended inter alia, that the allegations made by the respondent Nos 2 to 4 in the related paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit is not admitted by the writ petitioner and the learned senior counsel further submitted that the autobiography of the respondent No. 2 eulogizing himself is quite irrelevant and redundant for the purpose of a just decision in the present case and the writ petitioner never made any transfer application in favour of Shri Konjengbam Tombi Singh and there is no point in making such application without any valid registered deed of transfer in respect of a property worth several lakhs of rupees even in those days and that, Shri Achom Indrajit Singh, son of the writ petitioner never made any transfer application in favour of the said Shri 'Konjengbam Tombi Singh and the writ petitioner was never a witness thereto and that such alleged documents as produced by the respondent Nos 2 to 4 should be treated as non est in the eye of law and no better than fictitious and apart from it, neither Shri Konjengbam Tombi Singh nor Sapam Ibochouba Singh nor any of the respondent Nos 2-4 has any deed of transfer in their favour to clinch the issue on ownership and possession of the disputed land and buildings thereon nor were/are any of them in possession of the same at any point of time. 8. 8. Now, this Court is to examine as to whether the original writ petitioner or his legal heirs namely 4 (four) sons had/have enforceable legal rights in the instant case or not and whether the impugned allotment order was issued by the competent authority in accordance with the related provisions of section 14 (2) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 in respect of the disputed land to and in favour of the respondent No.2 or not and whether the State-respondent had duly considered and examined the application for allotment filed by the original writ petitioner and also that of the application filed by the said legal heirs/sons of the original writ petitioner with the latter or not, and whether, the State-respondent has been maintaining the related file and the records pertaining to the allotment of the disputed land to and in favour of the respondent No.2, particularly, the document namely, 'No objection Application' filed by the respondent Nos 3 and 4 to the effect that allotment of the disputed land in question may be given to and in favour of the respondent No.2 or not. 9. To meet the ends of justice, this Court had directed the learned Addl Govt. Advocate to produce the related file pertaining to the allotment of land in respect of the disputed land to and in favour of the respondent No.2 and also the file containing the application of the original writ petitioner and that of the application filed by the petitioner and the legal heirs/sons of the original writ petitioner to the appropriate authority for allotment of the disputed land to and in their favour. The learned Addl Govt. Advocate produced the related file under sealed cover through the Registrar, Imphal Bench of this Court under the letter dated Nil. On perusal of the related file bearing file No.21/85/86-R(Pt) of the Secretariat Revenue Department, Govt. of Manipur on the subject "Application on behalf of the petitioner praying for renewal of the allotment of land (shop site) plot in favour of one Shri Punam Kumar Razak, son of Ram Govind under allotment order No.21/ 85/86-R dated 6th June 1986 at SI. No.32 of the said order”. The file contains 14 pages. On further perusal of the file it has been revealed that the Assistant Revenue Commissioner, Govt. of Manipur under his office letter dated 22nd May, 1998 bearing No.40/80/93-R informed the learned Addl Govt. No.32 of the said order”. The file contains 14 pages. On further perusal of the file it has been revealed that the Assistant Revenue Commissioner, Govt. of Manipur under his office letter dated 22nd May, 1998 bearing No.40/80/93-R informed the learned Addl Govt. Advocate (HC), Imphal that the concerned file bearing No.21/85/86-R referred to is not traceable in the related Section but the File No.21/85/86-R(Pt) has been enclosed for reference. To meet the ends of justice, these letters of the learned Additional Govt. Advocate (dated Nil) and office letter dated 22nd March, 1998 along with the original file bearing No.21/85/86R(Pt) containing 14 pages are hereby formed as part of the record and the same are marked as 'X', 'Y' and 'Z' respectively. 10. The State-respondent could not produce the related file so far claimed by them, i.e., the file bearing No.21/85/86-R. It is astound to note that how the State-respondent filed and submitted the counter affidavit contending inter alia, that the application filed by the writ petitioner did not reach to the competent authority and from that file they have extracted this information and submitted the statement in their counter affidavit in paragraph No.2 (L) in that regard, which is not a reasonable statement according to the and, apart from it, how the State-respondent made a statement to the effect that the disputed land was allotted in favour of the respondent No.2 vide order of 23rd January, 1993, and at the material times, the names of the respondent Nos 3 and 4 were recorded as lease holders/lessee of Shop No.9A and 9B; that they have submitted that respondent No.2 was the father-in-law of the respondent No.3 and the grand father of respondent No.4 and then they have no objection to the allotment as prayed for by the respondent No.2 (emphasis given). The State-respondent could not produce any document or related files in support of their contention and no record pertaining to the said application filed by the respondent Nos 3 and 4 is available as the State-respondent could not produce the related file. Over and above this, 4 (four) sons of the original writ petitioner in their application, viz. Civil Misc Application No.501 of 1997 stated that the applicants (sons of the petitioner) with the writ petitioner made an application dated 6th May, 1992 to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Govt. Over and above this, 4 (four) sons of the original writ petitioner in their application, viz. Civil Misc Application No.501 of 1997 stated that the applicants (sons of the petitioner) with the writ petitioner made an application dated 6th May, 1992 to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, Govt. of Manipur for allotment of the disputed land to the petitioner and the said applicants/sons by way of regularising the allotment thereof by the Imphal Municipal Board to the petitioner. A true copy of the said application dated 6th May, 1992 is attached and appended to the said miscellaneous application. The State-respondent is quite silent in the matter about the submission of the said joint application dated 6th May, 1992 to the concerned authority for allotment of the disputed land to the original writ petitioner and the applicants (sons of the writ petitioner). However, the 2nd respondent resisted to the statements made by the applicants/sons of the writ petitioner by contending inter alia, that the joint application was not a part of the writ petition and no reference thereto has been made therein and the said joint application dated 6th May, 1992 is foreign to the writ petition and the said joint application may be an after thought and even if it is genuine, it does not have any relevance in so far as the matter of representation of the deceased writ petitioner is concerned. In this connection, it may be noted that while disposing the said Civil Misc Application No.501 of 1997 on 18th May, 1998, this Court allowed the application filed by the 4 (four) applicants, ie, the sons of the original writ petitioner for their substitution and proceeding with the writ petition. On the prayer of the applicants through their learned senior counsel Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, the said joint application dated 6th May 1992 has been formed as part of the record of the main writ petition. On the prayer of the applicants through their learned senior counsel Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, the said joint application dated 6th May 1992 has been formed as part of the record of the main writ petition. The respondent Nos 2,3 and 4 urged and contended that the arrangements made in between the Imphal Municipal Board and original writ petitioner could not be a lease within the meaning of section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and by a similar arrangement and according to the practice of Imphal Municipal Board, the writ petitioner had already transferred his interest to some other persons and on the other hand the State-respondent No.l urged and contended in the related counter affidavit at paragraph No.2 (h) that at the material times, the name of the respondent Nos 3 and 4 were recorded as lease holders/lessee of Shop Nos 9A and 9B and at this stage, this Court do not understand as to why such controversial statements had been made by the respondents in their related counter affidavits. Apart from it, no original record with regard to the allotment of the disputed land in favour of the respondent No.2 could not be produced by the State-respondent despite the direction of this Court for just determination of the real points in controversy between the parties. 11. It is true that the State Govt. have the power to allot any such land for the purpose of industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as may be prescribed under the related provisions of law laid down under section 14 (2) (a) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 read with Rule 18 of the MLR and LR (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 and it is also well settled that the related Rule 5 (2) of Rule 12 of the MLR and LR (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 are not applicable to the allotment of land under section 14 (2) made by the State Govt. . According to me, even though such extra ordinary power is afforded to the State Govt. for allotment of land under section 14(2) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 for the said purposes, the State Govt. . According to me, even though such extra ordinary power is afforded to the State Govt. for allotment of land under section 14(2) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 for the said purposes, the State Govt. should exercise such power and discretion reasonably and sparingly, and it should be a reasonable one in the eye of a man of reasonable prudence even though the related provisions of the rules of the allotment are not applicable in the matter of such allotment of land under section 14 (2) of the Act. In this regard, a Division Bench of this Court in a case between Md Abdurma & others vs. The State of Manipur & others reported in (1983) 2 GLR 1 held thus : “10. Turning to the instant case we find that a citizen is given that statutory right to get allotment under the Act. There is no provision excluding the application of the principle of natural justice, either expressly or indirectly. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that while acting under section 14 (2) the State Government should give reasonable opportunity to the applicants to submit their say, before making the order of allotment .... 15. Before parting with the records we would observe that-there are various short falls or gaps in the Apt and the Rules. Section 14 (2) of the Act has perhaps conferred unguided and uncontrolled power to the Govt. . There should be some provision to control and check the power so that it may not be misused. Necessary provisions should be made in the Act and the Rules to that effect. Again we find that the purposes for which the State Govt. can allot land appears to be somewhat ambiguous. The intention of the Legislature should be made more clear by adding few more purposes like shops, establishments and other institutions of public nature. We have specially avoided using the expressions 'public purposes' as by the inclusive proviso in section 2 (t) of the Act, the expressions have been too much „ broadened. However, the expressions ought to remain, because in fact they also serve public purposes. However, taking advantage of section 2 (t) the power of the Deputy Commissioner under section 14 (1) cannot be usurped by the State Govt. under section 14 (2) of the Act. However, the expressions ought to remain, because in fact they also serve public purposes. However, taking advantage of section 2 (t) the power of the Deputy Commissioner under section 14 (1) cannot be usurped by the State Govt. under section 14 (2) of the Act. We fail to see why allotment of land to public institutions should not be included under section 14 (2) of the Act. Further allotment of land including building to needy persons in town area is surely the obligation of the State Govt. . So, such purposes may also be included in section 14 (2). 16. When every citizen has a right to get allotment under section 14 (2) of the Act, before the power is exercised, notifications should be issued to the public about the proposed allotment specifying the area, the premium to be paid and the class of persons in respect of whom premiums may be reduced. After the applications are received, they should be considered and the applicants and/or their representatives should be heard and thereafter the order of allotment should be made. All these should be incorporated in the Act and/or the Rules. We repeat that one of the main object of the Act is to remove inequality. Special provisions should be made for the poor or weaker section of the society which undoubtedly includes the members of the Schedule Tribes, Schedule Castes and those who are socially and economically backward. In respect of socially and economically backward persons the premium should be minimal. Landless persons in occupation of khas lands and evicted therefrom under section 15 of the Act should be favourably considered, if they were allowed to occupy the land for few years by the Govt. without taking any punitive action against them. It is the obligation of the Govt. to provide land and roof to the poor who cannot purchase land and construct houses/ building. Is it possible for any person to compete with a wealthy person if the lands are sold at the market price? We hope and trust that the State Govt. shall make necessary amendment, alteration to give a new look to the Act and the Rules so that it can serve the basic objects of the constitutional mandates and the law and take care of those who are lowly placed and to uplift them from utter misery. 17. We hope and trust that the State Govt. shall make necessary amendment, alteration to give a new look to the Act and the Rules so that it can serve the basic objects of the constitutional mandates and the law and take care of those who are lowly placed and to uplift them from utter misery. 17. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to respondent No. 1, the State Government and respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner for doing the needful as indicated in the judgment.” 12. It is also an established principle of law that it was/is not open to the State Govt. to allot the plots of land to any person/persons in this regard to the claims of those who had also applied for allotment (See Parashram Thakur Dass & others vs. Ram Chand & others, reported in AIR 1982 SC 872 ). Here, in this case, atleast there is a prima facie and material on record that the original writ petitioner filed an original application and subsequently, the writ petitioner along with the said applicants, namely, the 4 (four) sons also filed an application for allotment of the disputed land in their favour and in this regard the State-respondent is quite silent except the fact that the earlier application filed by the original writ petitioner is/was not reached to the authority concerned but nothing is mentioned or controverted by the State-respondent about the filing of the subsequent application for allotment of the disputed land by the original writ petitioner and his 4 (four) sons/applicants in their favour. 13. Even though section 14 (2) of the Act has perhaps conferred unguided arid uncontrolled power to the Govt. , the State Govt. should exercise such power sparingly and reasonably while allotting the land to any person/persons so that justice is done to all. At this stage, I hereby recall the legal maxim, namely “justice should not only be done, but it must appear to have been done.” Apart from it, Lord Macnaghten said : “It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers such as those conferred upon the corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably. The last proposition is involved in the second, if not in the first. Lord Macnaghten likewise said, in a case where the Public Service Board of New South Wales had awarded a retiring civil servant a derisory gratuity of one penny per year of service. “Nobody, of course, can dispute that the Government or the Board had a discretion in the matter. But it was not an arbitrary discretion, as Pring J. seems to think. It was a discretion to be exercised reasonably, fairly, and justly.” And likewise Lord Wrenbury laid down the law as follows : “A person in whom is vested a discretion must exercise his discretion upon reasonable grounds. A discretion does not empower a man to do what he likes merely because he is minded to do so he must in the exercise of his discretion do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by the use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. He must act reasonably.” Similarly, Professor HWR Wade in his book called Administrative Law, Fourth Edition said: “The common theme of all the passages quoted is that the notion of absolute or unfettered discretion is rejected. Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended. Although the Crown's lawyers have argued in numerous cases, that unrestricted permissive language confers unfettered discretion, the truth is that, in a system based on the rule of law, unfettered governmental discretion is a contradiction in terms. The real question is whether the discretion is wide or narrow, and where the legal line is to be drawn. For this purpose everything depends upon the true intent and meaning of the empowering Act. The powers of public authorities are therefore essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his Will may, subject to any rights of His dependents, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of his power. The powers of public authorities are therefore essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his Will may, subject to any rights of His dependents, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of his power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion. But it is wholly inappropriate to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for the public good, and within the true policy of the statute. There is nothing paradoxical in the imposition of such legal limits. It would indeed be paradoxical if they were not imposed. Nor is this principle an oddity of British or American Law, it is equally prominent in French Law. Nor is it a special restriction which fetters only local authorities; it applies no less to Ministers of the Crown. Nor is it confined to the sphere of administration; it operates wherever discretion is given for some public purpose, for example where a Judge has a discretion to order jury trial, it is only where powers are given for the personal benefit of the person empowered that the discretion is absolute. Plainly this can have no application in public law. For the same reasons it makes no sense to ask whether there may be unreviewable administrative action. Unreviewable administrative action is just as much a contradiction in terms as is unfettered discretion, at any rate in the case of statutory powers. The question which has to be asked is what is the scope of judicial review. But that there are legal limits to every power is axiomatic.” 14. In view of the above position, I am of the view that there shall be no unfettered discretion in public law and as such the State-respondent herein ought to have exercised its discretion conferred upon it under section 14 (2) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 while allotting a land to any individual or person /persons » reasonably so that justice is done to all concerned with a result that it should not be questioned by anybody for its validity. 15. 15. It may be stated here that the respondent No.2 instituted a civil suit being Original Suit No.31/93/24/94 in the Court of Subordinate Judge II, Manipur East and made an application for temporary injunction to restrain the said sons of the writ petitioner from disturbing the alleged possession and enjoyment of the part of the building standing on the disputed land by suppressing the relevant fact and earlier orders of the concerned civil Court granting temporary injunction restraining the respondent Nos 2, 3 and 4 from disturbing the original writ petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the said building standing on the disputed land. The learned Subordinate Judge II modified the exparte order earlier passed , by his predecessor vide, his order dated 23rd December, 1994 passed in Judicial Misc Case No. 132/93/109/1994 arising out of the said Original Suit No.31/93/24/ 1994 holding that the previous orders of the competent civil Court restraining the respondent Nos 2, 3 and 4 from disturbing the possession of the writ petitioner should be sustained and that the respondent No.2 being aggrieved by the said order had preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Court of the District Judge, Imphal East vide appellate judgment passed on 19th February, 1997 in Misc Civil Appeal No. 1/1995/4/95/7/96 as reflected in the document marked as Annexure A/15 to the affidavit in rejoinder of the writ petitioner. Considering all these aspects and also the existence of the said joint application filed by the ' original writ petitioner and his sons for allotment of the disputed land in their favour, according to me, the principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona shall not be applicable in the instant case, in other words, the right claimed by the original writ petitioner was not only personal to him but it was also personal to his 4 (four) sons/applicants and which has survived to his legal heirs too. 16. 16. In my considered view, it is .a case of non-application of mind of the State-respondent while allotting the disputed land to and in favour of the 2nd respondent under the impugnedprder inasmuch as the State-respondent had lost the sight of the following existing facts: Some of the shop-sites lying in the industrial area of Imphal Town acquired by the respondent No. 2 either in his name or in the name of his family members are mentioned below: (1) Shop sites plot under Patta No.315 (old)/352 (new) and Dag No. 3682 of Sheet No. 18 of Imphal Municipality measuring .050 Acre in his name; (2) Shop site plot being half of the land under Patta No.24 (o!d)/357 (new) and Dag No.2587 of Sheet No.16 of Imphal Municipality measuring .023 Acre, in the name of the respondent No. 2 and another; (3) Shop site plot under Dag No.253/684 (new) of Sheet No. 16 Imphal Municipality 1990-91 survey measuring .0045 Hectare in the name of his son L. Dilip KumarSingh. (4) Shop site plot under Dag No.55 (new) of Sheet No. 17 Imphal Municipality measuring .0058 Hectare in the names of his daughters L. Damayanti Devi, Sumila Devi and Rita Devi. 17. On further perusal of the original file bearing No. 21/85/86-R (Pt) marked as 'Z' (part of the record of this case) it has been revealed that a town land measuring .014 Acre under CS Dag No.3212 had been allotted to and in favour of 3 (three) daughters of the present 2nd respondent and those are L. Damayanti Devi, L. Sumila Devi and L. Rita Devi under a related Govt. order of 6th June, 1986 issued under section 14 (2) of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 and whereas, neither the original writ petitioner nor any of the said 4 (four) sons/applicants legal heirs of the writ petitioner have been allotted even a single inch of land despite they have been in possession for the disputed land and despite the protection of their possession under the related order of competent civil Court. It is too much on the part of State-respondent while allotting the present disputed land to the present respondent No.2. In my considered view, the State-respondent did not act reasonably and they acted not in good faith while passing the impugned allotment order in favour of the 2nd respondent. 18. It is too much on the part of State-respondent while allotting the present disputed land to the present respondent No.2. In my considered view, the State-respondent did not act reasonably and they acted not in good faith while passing the impugned allotment order in favour of the 2nd respondent. 18. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, I am of the view that the impugned Govt. order dated 23rd January, 1993 as in Annexure A/14 to the writ petition granting allotment to the respondent No.2 is an illegal and arbitrary and against the Directive Principles of the State Policy and the same was passed without considering the legitimate claim of the original writ petitioner and that of the legal heirs/applicants 4 sons of the original writ petitioner and accordingly, it is hereby quashed. 19. In thfe result, the writ petition is allowed but no costs. 20. Despite the disposal of this writ petition, I am constrained to make the following order and observations : This Court requires the State-respondent to look back and recall the decisions, i.e. the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1983 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Md Abdurma & others vs. The State of Manipur & others reported in (1983) 2 GLR1 and further this Court hope and trust that the State-respondent shal 1 make necessary amendment, ^Iteration to the related pro visions of law laid down under section 14 (2) of the Act of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 to give a new look to the Act and the related Rules so that it can serve the people of the State and protect the law and take care of the interest of all concerned, particularly who are lowly placed in the society and, for their upliftment from their miserable lives. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent tome respondent No. 1, the State Govt. and to all the Deputy Commissioners of the State of Manipur fa for doing the needful in the light of the judgment and order of this Court so that justice is done to all concerned.