JUDGMENT : SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Ms. Lhousino and Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel representing respondent Nos. 8 to 50, 52 to 54, 56 to 66, 71 to 78 and 80 to 90, assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel as well as Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 93(K)/2014. The petitioners who are appellants before this court are the Nihokhu Village Council, representing the Nihokhu Village, new land sub-division, District-Dimapur, Nagaland and represented by its Chairman, Mr. Ghoshuho Zhimomi. Shri Ahoto Zhimomi is the Head Gaon Bura of the Nihokhu Village, who is the petitioner-appellant No. 2. 3. The case projected by the appellants in the writ petition are at the Nihokhu Village was established 1919 as per Sumi customs and practices. The village is a Government recognised village and in terms of Nagaland Village Councils Act, 1978, the village has a duly constituted village council. The village falls under the Nihokhu EAC (Extra Assistant Commissioner) circle of the NIU land, sub-division under the district of Dimapur, Nagaland. There are about 473 households in the village and the population of the village is more than three thousand. When the Government of Nagaland decided to shift the office of Circle Office at Pherima to Nihokhu, both in the district of Dimapur, there was need for land to construct and establish the new office. In response to the need, the villagers of Nihokhu village offered to donate the required land. Accordingly, vide letter, dated 26.9.1979, six elders of Nihokhu village conveyed the same to the ADC, Dimapur. After the land was gifted to the Government of Nagaland, the CO headquarters was established at Nihokhu village on the land donated. Though the land was donated only for the purpose of establishing the office of CO and for future development, the EAC, Nihokhu, forgetting the very purpose for which the land was gifted and without following the rules of land allotment, issued in the form of Notification and Memorandum by the Government of Nagaland, from time-to-time, allotted a good portion of land from the donated land to various individuals including the private respondents. 4. 4. As the land donated by the village for establishment of EAC office purposes, was used for the allotment of private individuals. The petitioners have filed the writ petition against the land allotment orders issued by the EAC and prayed for setting aside and quashing the said land allotment orders by the EAC and also to stop such rampant allotment of the said land in future. 5. The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was disposed of with the following observations: “7. In view of the admitted facts, I am in agreement with the learned counsels of the respondents that the villagers of Nihokhu village have abdicated their right to say anything on what the Government of Nagaland would do with the land. Secondly, regarding the requirement of obtaining approval of the State Government for Issuing allotment of government land to the individuals, it is the Government who should be coming forward to say so. The fact that its representatives have supported the allotment orders shows that the Government of Nagaland had either approved or has no objection on the allotment orders issued by the EAC, Nihokhu. Thirdly, the fact that both the petitioners are among the allottees, shows that the allotment orders were not issued against the will and wishes of the villagers of Nihokhu village. Therefore, the challenge against the allotment orders on those grounds, fails. Lastly but not the least, on perusal of the allotment orders, it appears that the allotments were issued on temporary basis, therefore, the Government of Nagaland has not totally given up those plots allotted to the individuals. 8. In view of the above reasons and conclusions, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it must be stated here that keeping in view of the situation in Nagaland where all the lands belongs to private parties, the Government of Nagaland must not allot any plot out of the land donated by the villagers of Nihokhu village unless it is absolutely necessary to do so in the interest of public. Needless to say but in circumstances where the officers of the district or sub-division empowered to issue order, feels necessary to issue allotment order, the same should be done only after obtaining permission or approval from the competent authority.” 6. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been filed. 7. Needless to say but in circumstances where the officers of the district or sub-division empowered to issue order, feels necessary to issue allotment order, the same should be done only after obtaining permission or approval from the competent authority.” 6. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been filed. 7. The appellant is particularly aggrieved by the fact that the prayers for quashment of the land allotment order issued by the EAC was not set aside and quashed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no dispute that the village council had donated 300 acres of land in terms of the request made by the Government for establishment of the EAC Office. However, over the years, it is seen that the EAC started issuing land allotment orders to several individuals, namely, respondent Nos. 6 to 92. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submits that although there is no specific rule or statute in the State of Nagaland which governs the procedure for allotment of land, he refers to various Memorandums, dated 22.12.1973, 15.9.1992, 2.2.1996, 10.6.1996 and 6.6.2008 and Notifications, dated 20.8.1979, 10.11.1993 and 21.5.2005 issued by the Government of Nagaland as guidelines in respect of allotment orders of Government land to individuals. Referring to those Memorandums and Notifications issued by the Government from time-to-time. The learned counsel submits that the orders of land allotment issued by the EAC is in total contravention to the Notifications and Memorandums issued by the Government. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that all the allotment orders are illegal and, therefore, the same should be set aside and quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon the following judgments: “1. Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 5 SCC 29 . 2. P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian v. P. Velduari, (2011) 5 SCC 214 . 3. Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots Association of India (ALPAI) v. Director General of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435 . 4. Hussain Ghadially Alias Moh. G.A. Shaikah v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 8 SCC 425 . 5. Ananta Raj Kumar v. Gopa Choudhury, (2014) 4 Gau LT 265. 6. Loyalakpa Vahengbam Anata v. State of Manipur, (2010) 3 Gau LT 150. 7. Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120 .” 9. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. 4. Hussain Ghadially Alias Moh. G.A. Shaikah v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 8 SCC 425 . 5. Ananta Raj Kumar v. Gopa Choudhury, (2014) 4 Gau LT 265. 6. Loyalakpa Vahengbam Anata v. State of Manipur, (2010) 3 Gau LT 150. 7. Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120 .” 9. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate submits that there is no dispute that the village council had donated the land to the Government for establishment of the EAC Office. Once the land is donated it becomes the Government land. The land was given by the village council pursuant to an agreement arrived at between the village council and the Government/department. A meeting was held between the head Gaonburas and other village elders and deed an EAC, Nihokhu on 30.7.2003 in the Office of the EAC headquarter, whereby it was agreed that temporary residential permit will be issued under terms and conditions. Subsequently, land settlement board was constituted in which the village elders and Gaonburas are also members. Subsequently, in an another meeting dated 31.1.2006 of the land settlement board wherein the village elders, Gaonburas and the EAC Nihokhu were members agreed that “since a vast portion of the Government land is lying unused the land settlement board resolved to allot some portion to the villages/public who are landless to develop the land”. 10. The learned Addl. Govt, advocate further submitted that entire land which was given by the village council did not have any habitation. Consequently, for effective development of EAC headquarters, it was necessary to develop some habitation in the area for future development of the area and accordingly, the EAC had issued temporary land settlement permits to the private respondents. The Addl. Govt, advocate also referred to the order dated 17.2.2006 passed by the EAC permitting the Nihokhu village council to open weekly market at Government land as temporary permit under EAC Nihokhu. Under the circumstances, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt, advocate submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the writ appeal be dismissed. 11. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing for private respondents submits that as the petitioners were themselves among the allottees to the plots of land they cannot challenge the order of which they themselves were beneficiaries. 11. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing for private respondents submits that as the petitioners were themselves among the allottees to the plots of land they cannot challenge the order of which they themselves were beneficiaries. The learned senior counsel referred to the meeting of the village elders and the EAC which was convened to submit that it was agreed that land may be issued to landless individuals or for the development of EAC headquarter. Therefore, the allotment of land to the respondents was with due consent of the village council/village elders. The learned senior counsel submits that the decision of the village council for allotment of land for development of EAC headquarter and to other landless persons have not been revoked by the village council and no contra-resolution to that effect has been produced by the petitioners/appellants. The learned senior counsel also questioned the locus of the petitioners to challenge the allotment orders that the appellants have not been able to refer to any resolution of the village council which authorises them to challenge the allotment orders made in favour of the private respondents by filing the writ petition/writ appeal. The learned senior counsel also referred to allotment order dated 29.10.2002 issued by the EAC in favour of one of the relatives of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that they being beneficiaries themselves they do not have the locus to challenge the allotment made in respect of the private respondents. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants disputes the contentions of the learned counsels for the respondents that any allotment was made in favour of any of the relatives of the petitioner. Rather they dispute the same. 13. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 14. We have also perused the judgment under appeal as well as the pleadings on the record. 15. From the pleadings, it is seen that there is no dispute that the village council had given land to the Government for establishment for the EAC, Nihokhu headquarters. It is also seen from the pleadings that at an earlier point of time, the village council elders had also agreed for allotment of some portions of the land to private landless persons. The allotments made by the EAC in favour of the respondents are also temporary residential permits. It is also seen from the pleadings that at an earlier point of time, the village council elders had also agreed for allotment of some portions of the land to private landless persons. The allotments made by the EAC in favour of the respondents are also temporary residential permits. The village council does not resile from the decision taken to make allotments to private landless individuals from the land given to the Government for establishment of EAC Office. 16. The prayers made in the writ petition were two folds: (1) Quash and set aside the allotment Orders/permit which are mentioned in paragraph No. 10 and annexed as ANNEXURE-E1 to E87 and (2) Direct the State respondents not to make allotments in future to private parties from the 300 acres of land donated by the Village. 17. The learned Single Judge upon considering the submissions of the learned counsels and pleadings on record, held that: In view of the admitted facts, I am in agreement with the learned counsels of the respondents that the villagers of Nihokhu village have abdicated their right to say anything on what the Government of Nagaland would do with the land. Secondly, regarding the requirement of obtaining approval of the State Government for Issuing allotment of government land to the individuals, it is the Government who should be coming forward to say so. The fact that its representatives have supported the allotment orders shows that the Government of Nagaland had either approved or has no objection on the allotment orders issued by the EAC, Nihokhu. Thirdly, the fact that both the petitioners are among the allottees, shows that the allotment orders were not issued against the will and wishes of the villagers of Nihokhu village. Therefore, the challenge against the allotment orders on those grounds, fails. Lastly but not the least, on perusal of the allotment orders, it appears that the allotments were issued on temporary basis, therefore, the Government of Nagaland has not totally given up those plots allotted to the individuals. 18. The prayer for quashing the allotment orders/permits of the private respondents was not allowed. However, the second prayer made in the writ petition was duly considered and allowed. 19. In an intra-court appeal, the scope of judicial review of the appellate court is extremely limited. 18. The prayer for quashing the allotment orders/permits of the private respondents was not allowed. However, the second prayer made in the writ petition was duly considered and allowed. 19. In an intra-court appeal, the scope of judicial review of the appellate court is extremely limited. Unless there is perverse finding of fact by the learned Single Judge, merely because another or a better view is possible, the order of the Single Judge should not be interfered with unless both sides agree for a fair approach on the relief. The scope of judicial scrutiny of an appellate court in an intra-court appeal has been laid down by the Apex Court in Management of Narendra & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Workmen of Narendra & Co., (2016) 3 SCC 340 . The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted below: “5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order [Narendra & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Workmen, WP No. 41489 of 2002, decided on 14.3.2008 (KAR)] passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 20. In the present proceedings, the Government has accepted the judgment of the Single Judge and has not come up on appeal. It is also submitted that in future without proper scrutiny and approval land allotment permits will not be granted. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to project any perverse finding of facts by the Single Judge. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. 21. It is also submitted that in future without proper scrutiny and approval land allotment permits will not be granted. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to project any perverse finding of facts by the Single Judge. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. 21. However, having said that we are also mindful of the various Circulars and Notifications issued by the Government from time-to-time regarding guidelines towards land allotments which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, although we have declined to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, we dispose of this appeal with a direction to the respondents/authorities that at the time of consideration of any proposal for converting the temporary settlements of the private respondents into permanent land holdings, the same shall be done as per the provisions of law. 22. Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above observations.