JUDGMENT Abhay Sapre, C.J.:-- 1. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the State (respondent of WP (C) No. 727 of 2004) under Gauhati High Court Rules against the orders dated 13.09.2005 and also against an order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the single Judge in aforementioned writ petition and in review petition being Review Petition No. 9 of 2006 respectively. 2. By impugned orders, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and passed the consequential order against the State authorities for their compliance and further gave certain directions to the State while dismissing the review petition. 3. So the question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and further while dismissing the review petition of the State was justified in giving directions to the State? 4. In order to appreciate the issue involved and urged by the parties, it is necessary to state few relevant facts. 5. The dispute relates to allotment/cancellation of land bearing CS dag No. 1680 of Sheet No 12, measuring around 1.054 acres situated within the Imphal Municipality limits at Imphal. 6. The respondent (writ petitioner) is a registered society. It is formed for propagating the Hindi amongst the tribal population throughout the State. In order to augment the activities of the society, the respondent made two applications dated 29.8.77/21.9.77 for allotment of the land to their society. One was made to Revenue Minister and the other was to Director of Settlement for allotment of the aforesaid land. It was alleged that during pendency of their applications, since the por­tion of the land in question was allotted to two individuals namely N. Prabin Kumar Singh and Mrs. Faizilatun Nesha, it was challenged by the respondent in one civil suit as being bad in law. It was stated that the civil court by its judgment dated 6.1.2004 decreed respondent’s suit and quashed the allotments made in favour of these two individuals. It was alleged that since no appeal was filed by the two individuals and hence the judgment cancelling the allotment became final. The respondent thus prayed for allotment of the said land to them for augmenting the object of their society. 7. It was alleged that since no appeal was filed by the two individuals and hence the judgment cancelling the allotment became final. The respondent thus prayed for allotment of the said land to them for augmenting the object of their society. 7. The State considered the applications and vide order dated 21.1.1993 allowed the same in part by allotting to the respondent only a portion of the aforesaid land measuring 0.793 acres out of total 1.054 acres. The allotment was made on following terms and conditions. (1) The allottee shall pay premium as may be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal (now DC/IE) within 6 (six) months. (2) The allottee shall pay land Revenue. (3) The allotted land shall be resumed by the Government. (i) if used for the purpose other than that for which it has been allotted. (ii) if not put to use for the purpose for which it has been allotted within 2 (two) years of the allotment. 8. On 25.1.1993, the respondent then applied to Deputy Commissioner under proviso to Rule 18 of the MLR & LR (Allotment of Land) Rules (for short hereinafter called “the Rules”) claiming exemption from payment of premium for the land in question. Since no order on this application was passed by the Deputy Secretary and hence the respondent filed one reminder application and prayed for passing orders on their exemption application. It is not in dispute that till date no order is passed by the Deputy Secretary on their application and the application is awaiting its disposal in accordance with law. 9. On 25.11.2003, a show cause notice was issued by the State to the respondent proposing therein to cancel the allotment of the land made in respondent’s favour. The grounds on which the cancellation was proposed was that firstly respondent has failed to pay the premium, secondly the respondent has failed to execute the deed of allotment in relation to the land in question and thirdly the respondent has failed to obtain the possession of the land pursuant to the allotment order. 10. The grounds on which the cancellation was proposed was that firstly respondent has failed to pay the premium, secondly the respondent has failed to execute the deed of allotment in relation to the land in question and thirdly the respondent has failed to obtain the possession of the land pursuant to the allotment order. 10. The respondent filed their reply opposing to the show cause inter alia gating therein that State has not filed any reply to their application made for seeking exemption from payment of premium, and hence so long as the application for exemption is not decided by the Deputy Secretary as per the Rules, the question of payment of premium, so also execution of deed and delivery of possession of the allotted land would not arise. 11. On 25.2.2004, the State cancelled the allotment of land which was made in favour of the respondent on the ground that since the respondent failed to pay the premium in terms of the allotment order and nor ensured compliance of other two grounds mentioned above and hence the allotment made in favour of the respondent in relation to the land in question stands cancelled. 12. It is against this cancellation order of allotment, the respondent felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition out of which this intra-court appeal arises. The writ court (single Judge) allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation order impugned in the writ petition with the direction which reads as under: “(18) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in totality, by keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court, in the cases cited above, this court is of the considered view that interference to the impugned order dated 25.2.2004 is called for, for the limited purpose. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.2.2004 is hereby quashed for the purpose of giving one more chance to the petitioner/society to pay the premium fixed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner in compliance with the allotment order dated 21.1.1993 within a reasonable time.” 13. The State felt aggrieved filed review petition against the said order before the writ court. The learned single Judge though dismissed the review petition but at the same time issued fresh directions to the State in relation to the land in question for its compliance. The State felt aggrieved filed review petition against the said order before the writ court. The learned single Judge though dismissed the review petition but at the same time issued fresh directions to the State in relation to the land in question for its compliance. These directions read as under: “However, it is made clear that for fixing the amount of premium to be paid by the respondent/writ petitioner society for the lands allotted to them under the allotment order dated 21.1.1993 in compliance with the judgment and order of this court dated 13.9.2005, the review petitioners may locate or demarcate the lands allotted to the respondent/writ petitioner society under the allotment order dated 21.1.1993 in the presence of both the parties for the purpose of fixing the premium at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order.” 14. It is against these two orders i.e. order allowing the writ petition and order dismissing the review petition with directions, the State felt aggrieved and filed this intra-court appeal. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to uphold the main order dated 13.09.2005 passed in the writ petition insofar as it quashes the cancellation order, but are inclined to interfere in part insofar as directions contained in the order are concerned and also interfere in the order dt. 14.11.2005 passed by the writ court in the review petition insofar as the directions contained in the said order are concerned. 16. The controversy in question need to be decided keeping in view the terms and conditions of the allotment order, grounds specified in the show cause and the Rules which govern the controversy. Rules 14, 15 and 18 are relevant for disposal of this appeal. They are quoted in verbatim infra: “14. An amount equal to the market value of the land shall be charged as premium for allotment of any town land. 15. Rules 14, 15 and 18 are relevant for disposal of this appeal. They are quoted in verbatim infra: “14. An amount equal to the market value of the land shall be charged as premium for allotment of any town land. 15. An allotment of land under sub-section (1) of section 14 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-- (i) The land shall not be transferred by the allottee within ten years from the date of allotment without the written consent of Deputy Commissioner; Provided that the land may be mortgaged to a co-operative society a co-operative bank or land mortgage bank or the Government without such consent. (ii) An allottee on giving three months’ notice before the end of an agricultural year and on payment of all Government dues in respect of the allotted land up to the end of the said agricultural year may surrender the land allotted to him. On such surrender being made, the land shall revert to the Government. (iii) In case the allottee is a co-operative farming society and the registration of such society is cancelled within ten years from the date of allotment, the land allotted to such society shall thereupon be deemed to have been resumed by the Government and the Government shall not be liable to pay any compensation. Any person holding or retaining possession of such land thereafter shall be deemed to be a trespasser. (iv) In case of waste land allotted for agricultural purposes the allottee shall bring the whole area under cultivation within three years from the date of allotment. (v) The allottee shall be liable to pay such amount as land revenue as may be assessed under the Act and the rules made thereunder. (vi) The allottee shall within the time fixed in the allotment order pay to the Government an amount equal to the market value of the trees and structures, if any, standing on the land. (v) The allottee shall be liable to pay such amount as land revenue as may be assessed under the Act and the rules made thereunder. (vi) The allottee shall within the time fixed in the allotment order pay to the Government an amount equal to the market value of the trees and structures, if any, standing on the land. (vii) The allotment shall be liable to be cancelled if, except in cases falling under clause (iv), the land is not used within 2 years of the date of allotment for the purpose for which it was allotted or if the allottee commits a breach of any of the conditions of allotment or the provisions of these rules and the Deputy Commissioner may reenter on the land; Provided that no such cancellation or re-entry shall be made unless the allottee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (viii) No compensation shall be payable by the Government on account of cancellation of any allotment or of any re-entry by the Deputy Commissioner under these rules, but if the allottee has built any constructions on the land he shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity to remove the same. 18. The allotment of land under sub-section (2) of section 14 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely: (i) The allottee shall be liable to pay a premium equal to the market value of the land; Provided that the Administrator may, by order in writing exempt an allottee of any land from the payment of premium or any part thereof, if in his opinion, the allottee has not sufficient means to make such payment. (ii) to (vi) .... 17. Mere perusal of aforequoted Rules would go to show that Rule 14 provides for determination of premium for the land situated in town whereas Rule 15 deals with the terms and conditions on which allotment of land is done. Rule 18 proviso, however empowers the Administrator to grant in writing the exemption to any allottee of land from payment of premium or any part thereof, if in his opinion, the allottee has no sufficient means to pay such amount. 18. Rule 18 proviso, however empowers the Administrator to grant in writing the exemption to any allottee of land from payment of premium or any part thereof, if in his opinion, the allottee has no sufficient means to pay such amount. 18. Keeping in view the scheme and object of the Rules, it is clear to us that so long as the State i.e. authority specified in the Rule does not fix the premium in respect of the allotted land, the allottee is not under legal or contractual obligation to pay the premium to the State. In other words, the liability to pay the premium for the allotted land arises only after the premium is fixed by the State as provided under the Rules. In fact, the condition No. 1 of the allotment order in clear terms has used the expression “premium as may be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner”. This clearly suggests that the State has to first fix the premium and then call upon the allottee to pay. 19. It is not disputed that till date, the Deputy Commissioner, i.e. State has not fixed any premium in relation to the land in question as provided under the Rules because the State did not file any copy of the order showing fixation of the premium for the land in question. 20. In our considered view, since the respondent had filed an application under Rule 18 proviso for grant of exemption from payment of premium and hence it was the duty of the State to have first decided such application keeping in view the ground taken therein and the requirement of Rule 18 ibid before calling upon them to pay the premium. 21. In our opinion, the fixation of the premium under Rule 14 so also the issue relating to grant/refusal to grant exemption to pay such premium under Rule 18 is a judicial act and hence so long as these issues are not decided by the authority in accordance with Rules by exercising the powers conferred on them under the Rules, the State does not have jurisdiction to proceed in the matter much less against the allottee. In fact while considering the fixation of premium, if the Deputy Commissioner is of the view that allottee is not entitled to claim any exemption under the Rules then he has to fix the premium accordingly as provided under Rule 14 but if a case for grant of exemption as provided under Rule 18 is made out then in such event, an order granting exemption whether fully or partly, as the case may be, is required to be passed. In any case, an order fixing the premium or granting the exemption whether partly or fully or refusing to grant exemption is a sine qua none before proceeding to take any action against the allottee in relation to land, by the State. 22. We therefore fail to appreciate as to how the State could call upon the respondent to pay the premium which was not fixed by the specified authority under the Rules. 23. In our opinion, therefore, the State was not right and nor had power to make this to be the ground for cancellation of the allotment order. A ground which did not exist could not be made the basis for cancellation of allotment of land. It was therefore ex facie bad in law. 24. The same was the case in relation to other two grounds viz : non execution of deed and delivery of possession of the land. These two grounds in our opinion were consequential to the first ground. Since the first ground itself did not exist - a fortiori, the second and third being consequential to the first ground were also of no significance for making the basis for cancellation of allotment. 25. It cannot perhaps be disputed that once the allotment of land is made on specified terms by the State in favour of the allottee then a right accrues in favour of the allottee to defend such allotment. It can be cancelled by the State only in accordance with law on the grounds which governs the allotment and the procedure prescribed in Rules. 26. Equally well settled principle of law is that every action of the State which affects citizen’s right be that property/fundamental/statutory/contractual, the same must always satisfy the principle of reasonableness and be free from arbitrariness. It can be cancelled by the State only in accordance with law on the grounds which governs the allotment and the procedure prescribed in Rules. 26. Equally well settled principle of law is that every action of the State which affects citizen’s right be that property/fundamental/statutory/contractual, the same must always satisfy the principle of reasonableness and be free from arbitrariness. Any action, if found to be either unreasonable or arbitrary, it would attract the rigor of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (see the subtle observations of Justice Vivian Bose, J. in the locus classic decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75 ). Indeed this principle of law was consistently followed, and expanded from time to time in last four decades by the Supreme Court (see Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 ). In our considered opinion, this principle squarely applies to the facts of this case while examining the legality and correctness of the cancellation of allotment order. 27. In the light of foregoing discussion, we fully concur with the reasoning of the learned single Judge when he proceeded to quash the cancellation order dated 25.02.2004. In our opinion, it is just, legal and proper and hence does not call for any interference. 28. This takes us to the next question as to whether the writ court (review court) was justified in dismissing the review and was further justified in issuing directions in the said order. 29. In our opinion, if the writ court was justified in the dismissing the review petition finding that original order sought to be reviewed does not contain any apparent error within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 of C. P. Code, it certainly erred in giving directions in the same order to the State to deal with the land in a particular manner. 30. In our considered opinion, once the review court dismissed the review petition finding no merit therein, then it had no jurisdiction to embark upon the issue arising in the case and nor it had jurisdiction to pass any directions on its merits of the case. The jurisdiction of review court is limited to examine as to whether the order sought to be reviewed contains any apparent error within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 or not?. The jurisdiction of review court is limited to examine as to whether the order sought to be reviewed contains any apparent error within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 or not?. If it contains, then the order has to be recalled but if the order does not contain any error then the court has to simply dismiss the review petition and in turn uphold the order. 31. In our considered opinion, therefore, the directions contained in the review order in its concluding para 7 were uncalled for. To that extent therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed in part. As a consequence, the directions contained in para 7 of order dated 14.11.2006 are set aside. 32. We may also deal with one submission urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was relating to certain subsequent events which according to him came into existence during pendency of this litigation and which have some bearing over the controversy. We do not consider it appropriate to narrate the details of these subsequent events because in our opinion, firstly these factual events were not made subject matter of this appeal and secondly they were also not brought on record in accordance with law by any party to enable this court to deal with the same effectively while determining the rights of the parties to the appeal. 33. Suffice it to say, it is now for the State to decide as to in what manner they should deal with such issues, if they really arise in the case and what orders need be passed in relation to such issues. 34. Before parting with the case, we consider it apposite to observe that as a consequence of our upholding the order dated 13.09.2005 passed in the writ petition, it is now for the Deputy Secretary to first pass order on the application made by the respondent under Rule 18 proviso with a view to find out as to whether any case for grant of exemption is made out or not? It is only after the orders are passed by the Deputy Secretary or any other specified authority empowered to decide this issue, the respondent be called upon to proceed accordingly. Needless to say, the authority concerned shall pass the orders strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the requirements of Rules. 35. It is only after the orders are passed by the Deputy Secretary or any other specified authority empowered to decide this issue, the respondent be called upon to proceed accordingly. Needless to say, the authority concerned shall pass the orders strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the requirements of Rules. 35. Needless to observe, the State would take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by any extraneous considerations. 36. Since the matter is quite old, it be disposed of by the concerned authorities expeditiously. No cost. Appeal partly allowed.