JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. These two writ appeals have been filed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.11.2000 in Civil Rule No. 43 of 1996 and Civil Rule No. 947 of 1998. The appellants were the petitioners in C.R. No. 43 of 1996 whereas Kombirei Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and Secretary of the said Cooperative Society were the petitioners in C.R. No. 947 of 1998. 2. The brief background of the case is that the appellant No. 1, the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Memorandum of Association of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research shows that the objective of the Council being scientific and industrial/applied research of national importance, its major activities should be in respect of research and development of projects of national priority, research and development of projects sponsored by industries in the private/public Sector, research and development directed towards continuous improvement of indigenous technology and adaptation and development of imported technology, research and development of new technologies etc. and also establishment or development of special institutions or departments of existing institutions for scientific study or problems affecting particular industries and trade, establishment and award of research fellowships and financing specific researches etc. The said society established Regional Research Laboratory (RRL) at Jorhat with a Director as its head to undertake various research and developmental works in respect of different industrial resources available in the North Eastern Region. In order to achieve its objective and in order to take up research and developmental works in the State of Manipur, the appellants approached the Govt. of Manipur sometime in the year, 1973 for allotment of a piece of land within Lamphelpat area where there was ample scope for taking up scientific and research work in respect of medicinal and oil yielding plants. On the basis of such application, Govt. Of Manipur, by order dated 11.3.1975, allotted 30 acres of land under C.S. Dag No. 3002(T) of Village No. 91-A Lamphelpat IWT in terms of the provisions contained in Manipur Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the, "1960 Act") in favour of the appellant No. 2. The premium for the purpose of allotment was exempted. Of Manipur, by order dated 11.3.1975, allotted 30 acres of land under C.S. Dag No. 3002(T) of Village No. 91-A Lamphelpat IWT in terms of the provisions contained in Manipur Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the, "1960 Act") in favour of the appellant No. 2. The premium for the purpose of allotment was exempted. However, the allotment order did not specify the boundaries of the land allotted in its favour for which the appellant No. 2 sought for clarification and in response an order was passed on 30.6.1975 specifying the boundaries of the allotted land. Possession of the land was thereafter handed over to the respondents on 20.1.1977. It is the case of the appellants that after taking over possession, the boundary wall work was completed sometime in the month of May, 1978 and the name of the appellant No. 2 was recorded in the related revenue records. The appellants also paid land revenue regularly till the year, 1996. When the matter stood thus, a notice was issued by the Revenue Department, Govt. Of Manipur to the Director of the appellant No. 2, Laboratory to show cause as to why the allotment made in favour of the appellant No. 2 should not be cancelled as it has not utilised 25 acres from out of the 30 acres on its north eastern side within two years from the date of allotment for the purposes for which the land had been allotted. The said notice was served on the Director of the appellant No. 2, Laboratory on 26.10.1993. After receipt of the notice, the Administrative Office of the appellant No. 2 sent telegraphic message to the Secretary, Revenue on 28.10.1993 stating that all efforts are being made for strengthening resources and development of the station at Imphal but due to objection from the local people, no effective work could be taken up for developmental activities. Thereafter, the State remained silent for some time and no orders were communicated to the appellants. Thereafter, the State remained silent for some time and no orders were communicated to the appellants. Subsequently the appellants came to know that 17.10 acres out of the allotted 30 acres of land which had been settled in favour of the appellant No. 2 had been given to the Members of the Cooperative Society, who was respondent in the writ petition as well as in the appeal for residential purposes and such allotment had been made by cancelling allotment made in favour of the appellant No. 2. Therefore, challenging the cancellation of the allotment of 30 acres of land already made in favour of the appellant No. 2, CR No. 43 of 1996 was filed by the appellants. 3. The Cooperative Society, as mentioned earlier, which is a respondent in the two appeals, filed C.R. No. 947 of 1998 challenging the cancellation of land allotted in its favour for residential purposes of its Members. Since the dispute related to same piece of land once allotted in favour of appellant No. 2 and cancelled and again part of it allotted in favour of the Cooperative Society and cancelled, the learned Single Judge with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard both the cases together and disposed of the same in the impugned common judgment and order. 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that they had no enforceable legal rights. However, C.R. No. 947 of 1998 filed by the Cooperative Society was allowed solely on the ground that it was not given any opportunity to show cause before the order of cancellation was passed in respect of the allotment made in favour of the said society. 5. Mr. L. Shasibushion, Advocate and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants challenged the impugned order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the allotment had been made in favour of the appellants under section 14(2) of the 1960 Act and therefore such allotment could not be cancelled taking recourse to Rule 15(iii) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of land) Rules, 1962. Such allotment made under section 14(2) of the 1960 Act could only be cancelled under Rule 18(iii) of the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. Such allotment made under section 14(2) of the 1960 Act could only be cancelled under Rule 18(iii) of the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. It was further contended that since cancellation of the land under Rule 15(iii) of the 1968 Rules was illegal, consequently allotment of part of the allotted land in favour of the Cooperative Society was also illegal and therefore it was rightly cancelled later on. 6. Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the Cooperative Society, which is one of the respondents in the appeal, submitted that allotment in favour of the appellants was under section 14(1) of 1960 Act and therefore it could only be cancelled under Rule 15(iii) of the of the 1962 Rules. It was also submitted by Mr. Bimol, learned counsel for the respondents that allotment could not have been made in favour of the appellant No. 2 in terms of 1960 Act and Rules made thereunder. It was also submitted that the allotment made in favour of the cooperative society having been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside such cancellation. 7. In order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the allotment of land made in favour of the appellants was in terms of the 1960 Act or not, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1960 Act as well as 1962 Rules. The relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules are quoted below: 1960 Act - "14.(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, with the prior approval of the Government allot land belonging to the Government for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling houses, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf under this Act. The relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules are quoted below: 1960 Act - "14.(1) The Deputy Commissioner may, with the prior approval of the Government allot land belonging to the Government for agricultural purposes or for construction of dwelling houses, in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf under this Act. (2) The State Government shall have power - (a) to allot any such land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as may prescribed, or (b) to entrust the management of any such land or any rights therein to the Gram Panchayat of the village established under any law for the time being in force." 1962 Rules - "15.(vii) The allotment shall be liable to be cancelled if, except in cases failing 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 re-enter on the land. 18(iii) The land shall be liable to be resumed by the Government if used for a purpose other than that for which it has been allotted, or if the allottee has committed a breach of any of the conditions of allotment." 8. We may refer to some of the Annexure annexed to C.R. No. 43 of 1996 which had been filed by the present appellants. Under Annexure-A/2 the Director, Settlement and Land Record, Manipur by order dt. 30.6.75 allotted 30 acres of land in favour of the appellant No. 2 in Village No. 91(A) Lamphelpat under CS Dag No. 3002(Part) u/s 14(1) of the 1960 Act before the order of allotment was issued. On 30.6.75, the Governor of Manipur, by order dt. 12.6.75 accorded sanction to exempt the appellants from paying premium. As is evident, u/s 14(1) of the 1960 Act, the Deputy Commissioner may with prior approval of the Government allot land belonging to the government for agricultural purpose or for construction of dwelling houses whereas u/s 14(2) the State Govt. shall have power to allot any such land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such condition as may be prescribed. shall have power to allot any such land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such condition as may be prescribed. Undisputedly the appellant intended to establish an Experimental cum-Administration Farm for medical and oil plants etc. Therefore, the purpose of allotment was neither for agricultural nor for construction of dwelling houses. Therefore, such allotment could only be made by the State Government under section14(2) of the Act. It is borne out from the records that though section 14(1) of the 1960 Act provides for allotment of land only for agricultural or residential purposes, allotment of 30 acres of land in favour of the appellants, not being for agricultural and residential purposes, was made under a wrong provision of the Act. Moreover, u/s 14(1) of the Act it is only the Deputy Commissioner, who is authorised to allot land after obtaining prior approval of the Government. 9. In the present case, the land has been allotted in favour of the appellants directly by the Government through its Director of Settlement and Land Record, Manipur. Therefore, we are of the view that allotment of land u/s 14(1) of the 1960 Act in favour of the appellant No. 2 was under a wrong provision and consequently non east in the eye of law. Therefore, the subsequent cancellation of land allotted in favour of the appellant No. 2 by taking recourse to Rule 15(vii) becomes immaterial. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the cancellation of allotment could be only made under Rule 18(iii) does not stand to any reason as the said provision shall apply only when allotment is made u/s14(2) of the Act. 10. Mr. A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant No. 2 not being a legal entity, land could not be allotted in its favour. While narrating the facts of the case, we have already observed that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Rules and regulations framed by the Society defines "National Laboratory" as a research laboratory or institute or any other scientific, engineering or technological institution set up or functioning under the authority of the Society. Therefore, "National Laboratory" is a creation under the Rules and Regulations of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. The Rules and regulations framed by the Society defines "National Laboratory" as a research laboratory or institute or any other scientific, engineering or technological institution set up or functioning under the authority of the Society. Therefore, "National Laboratory" is a creation under the Rules and Regulations of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & ors reported in (2002)5 SCC 111 the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research has been held to be a "State" within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The Research Laboratory having been created under the Rules and Regulations of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, is legal entity and therefore land can be allotted in its favour. 11. Coming to the allotment made in favour of the Kombirei Housing Cooperative Society and its Members, it appears from the Annexure-A/21, that by order dt. 26.6.1995 the Director, Settlement and Land Record with prior approval of the Government, allotted 17.10 acres of land in favour of the Members of Kombirei Housing Cooperative Society. It further appears from Annexure-A/15 to C.R. No. 947/98 that the Govt. Of Manipur by order dt. 3.7.1998 cancelled such allotment made in favour of the said society and its Members. From the said order dt. 3.7.1998 it appears that the Manipur Legislative Assembly in its sitting held on 27.3.1996 had constituted a Committee of the House to inquire into the allotment of land in favour of the Kombirei Housing Cooperative Society and its Members. The said Committee of the House, after enquiry, submitted its report and observed that most of the allottees who were members of the Society did not fulfil the requirements prescribed under the provisions of the Rules for such allotment in their favour. The committee also observed that the land allotment order in favour of the Regional Research Laboratory had been cancelled by the State Govt without considering the importance and utility of such Laboratory. The committee, therefore, recommended to the Government to review the Govt. Order dt. 22.12.93 cancelling allotment of 30 acres of land in favour of Regional Research Laboratory and also the order dated 26.6.1995 of the Director, Settlement and Land Record allotting 17.10 acres of land out of the said 30 acres in favour of the Kombirei Housing Cooperative Society. 12. The Commissioner (Rev) to the Govt. Order dt. 22.12.93 cancelling allotment of 30 acres of land in favour of Regional Research Laboratory and also the order dated 26.6.1995 of the Director, Settlement and Land Record allotting 17.10 acres of land out of the said 30 acres in favour of the Kombirei Housing Cooperative Society. 12. The Commissioner (Rev) to the Govt. Of Manipur, on the basis of such recommendation made by the House Committee without issuing any notice to show cause either to the Kombirei Housing Cooperative Society or to its Members in whose favour land had been allotted, cancelled such allotment holding that the allotment was void ab initio and non east in his order dated 3.7.1998. 13. The learned Single Judge allowed the Civil Rule No. 947 of 1998 filed by the said Society and its Members solely on the ground that before cancelling such allotment, no notice had been issued to the allottees. While we do not find any infirmity in the said order considering the fact that even on the face of the recommendation of the House Committee, the allotment made in favour of the Society and its Members could not be cancelled without giving them an opportunity of hearing, we disagree with the learned Single Judge that the appellants did not have enforceable right in respect of allotment made in favour of Appellant No. 2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research having been declared to be a State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India and the Research Laboratory being a creation of the Rules and Regulations of the said Council, under no stretch of imagination, it could be said that either the Council or the Laboratory is not the legal entity and had no enforceable right when the allotment made in its favour was cancelled by the State. 14. For the reasons stated above, while we decline to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge impugned before us so far as it relates to CR No. 947/98, we do not agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellants did not have any enforceable right. However, having found that the allotment made in favour of the appellants was under a wrong provision of law and that such allotment was non east in the eye of law, we find no reason to either disturb the impugned order or modify the same. However, having found that the allotment made in favour of the appellants was under a wrong provision of law and that such allotment was non east in the eye of law, we find no reason to either disturb the impugned order or modify the same. However, we grant liberty to the State to consider the recommendation of the House Committee and review of the order of allotment of land made in favour of the appellants and also at the same time grant liberty to the State to decide as to whether they should proceed for cancellation of land allotted in favour of the Kombirei Housing Cooperative Society and its Members after following due process of law as provided in the Rules. Both the writ appeals are disposed of accordingly.