ORDER : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saurabh Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure-8) by which the land allotted to her vide H/227/NS/L&R/015 of 08.12.2016 and subsequently converted to PLSC/R/NS/47/2018 of 26.04.2018 was cancelled along with other similarly situated persons. As per the said order, it was indicated by the respondent authorities that land was required for public purpose. 3. Brief facts of the case as set out by the petitioner is that allotment of land under the jurisdiction of the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC) used to be done in the form of Land Donation Certificates in respect of Government Departments, Companies, Firms etc. The authorities under the MADC took a decision to do away with the Land Donation Certificates and instead introduced land holdings by Government Departments, Companies, Firms etc., in the form of Land Lease. Accordingly, a Notification dated 21.03.2014 (Annexure-2) was issued by the MADC through the Senior Revenue Officer notifying that all Government Departments, Companies, Firms or other Associations of persons who were in possession of Land Donation Certificate should apply for Land Lease Certificate by surrendering their Land Donation Certificates on or before 31.03.2014. 4. Thereafter, another Notification dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure-3) was issued by the MADC through its Senior Revenue Officer notifying that all Land Donation Certificates issued by the MADC was revoked w.e.f. 01.04.2014. It was further stated that the original area of land may not be given while issuing the Land Lease Certificate and the Executive Committee, MADC will decide and allot the Land Lease with such areas as it deems fit and proper. In terms of the two notifications, the land holdings of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 came to be replaced with the issuance of Certificate of Land Lease, bearing No. LL. In terms of the two notifications, the land holdings of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 came to be replaced with the issuance of Certificate of Land Lease, bearing No. LL. 02 (G. Deptt) 43 of 08.02.2014 (Annexure-4), which was issued in the name of the respondent No. 4 for an area of 10139 Sq.m. Be it stated herein that the Health Department earlier possessed their land holdings in the form of Land Donation Certificate dated 17.09.1997 with an area of 26.40 X 21.85 mtrs., and Land Donation Certificate No. 54/LSC/2003-04/186 of 27.01.2005 with an area of 6.6 hectares. After the issuance of the Land Lease Certificate, the area of the land issued to the Health Department admittedly became smaller. 5. The petitioner admittedly was issued a plot of land in the surrendered portion of the land by the Health Department vide Land Passes No. H/227/NS/L&R 015 of 08.12.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a permanent pass under LSC No. PLSC/R/NS/47/018 of 26.04.2018 in terms of Section 16 of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Non-Agriculture Land Settlement) Act, 2011 (Act of 2011) with an area of 240 sq.m. 6. Subsequently, due to certain complaint submitted by the Health Department before the MADC, the petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons were issued a show-cause notice on 27.09.2018 asking them to show cause as to why their respective land Passes should not be cancelled, as there was requirement of the land for public purpose. The land owners were asked to submit their reply within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of the show-cause notice. Although the petitioner submitted a reply to the notice, her land Pass was, nevertheless, cancelled vide the impugned Order dated 17.01.2019. 7. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied for a plot of land before the MADC and she was accordingly issued a temporary land Pass under Section 15 of the Act of 2011 on 08.12.2016. Subsequently, her LSC was regularized by issuing her a permanent LSC under Section 16 of the Act of 2011 on 26.04.2018. He submits that the issuance of temporary Pass and thereafter, the permanent LSC to the writ petitioner was as per the established rules and procedures and therefore, the respondent authority concerned could not have cancelled her land Pass in the manner it was done. 8. He submits that the issuance of temporary Pass and thereafter, the permanent LSC to the writ petitioner was as per the established rules and procedures and therefore, the respondent authority concerned could not have cancelled her land Pass in the manner it was done. 8. The learned counsel further submits that Article 300A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save and accept by authority of law. He submits that if the respondent authorities require the petitioner's land for public purpose, the same has to be acquired in accordance with the relevant acquisition law and the petitioner given adequate compensation. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Condition No. 5 given in the LSC issued to the petitioner which states that the land may be partly or wholly acquired by the District Council or Officer authorized by it for public purposes in accordance with the provisions of any law applicable in the District Council area. He submits that despite the law and the above condition, the petitioner's land was not acquired but simply cancelled. He, thus, submits that the land of the petitioner may be restored or acquired as per the law applicable. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the Apex Court decision in Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 43 . 9. Appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Saurabh Pradhan, learned counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondents on 26.08.2019 submits that the petitioner is the daughter of the then Senior Revenue Officer, who was holding office at the time of issuance of the land Pass. The Executive Committee of the MADC convened a Joint Meeting with the Pass holders who were given land Pass within the area of land earlier held by the Health Department and all of them, except the father of the present petitioner agreed to the withdrawal of their land Passes as the land was required for the general public and by the Health Department. He submits that the concerned authority had also promised to issue land passes to them within the Health Department's land but in some other location. Accordingly, as promised, house Passes were issued in favour of as many as 5 (five) persons in the first phase. He submits that the concerned authority had also promised to issue land passes to them within the Health Department's land but in some other location. Accordingly, as promised, house Passes were issued in favour of as many as 5 (five) persons in the first phase. He further submits that since the father of the petitioner is one of the signatory in the body of the Pass given to the petitioner, the Pass allotment in favour of the petitioner is irregular and that the petitioner has taken advantage of the official position held by her father. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance and the writ petition should be dismissed. 10. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submits that the Health Department earlier possessed their land under Land Donation Certificate dated 17.09.1997 for an area of 26.4 X 21.85 mtrs and also under Land Donation Certificate No. 54/LSC/2003-04/186 of 27.01.2005 with an area of 6.6 hectares. With a view to change the system of issuing Land Donation Certificate by replacing the same with Land Lease Certificate, the area of land of the Health Department came to be substantially reduced. Moreover, some of the buildings belonging to the Health Department has been left outside the boundary of the new land allotment. Therefore, a complaint/representation was submitted by the Department before the MADC seeking restoration of their land in its original form. Accordingly, the authorities in the MADC took necessary steps for restoring the original area of land to the Health Department and the same by no means can be termed as illegal or irregular. As such, the writ petitioner has no right to claim ownership over the land with the Pass which she was issued within the land of the Health Department. He submits that the writ petition, therefore, may be dismissed. 11. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 12. From the projection made by the petitioner, the issue to be decided is as to whether the land Pass belonging to the petitioner could have been cancelled in the manner it was done. 11. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 12. From the projection made by the petitioner, the issue to be decided is as to whether the land Pass belonging to the petitioner could have been cancelled in the manner it was done. Facts undisputed is that the Health Department possessed their land under Land Donation Certificate dated 17.09.1997 and 27.01.2005 with an area of 26.40 X 21.85 mtrs and 6.6 hectares respectively. However, with the decision taken by the authorities in the MADC to do away with the Land Donation Certificate system while introducing the Land Lease Certificate system, Notification dated 21.03.2014 and 16.07.2014 came to be issued, by which it was provided that the Land Donation Certificates issued by the MADC was revoked w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and that a fresh Land Lease Certificate will be issued in respect of Government Departments, Companies, Firms or Associations of persons, etc. It was further provided that the fresh Land Lease Certificates will be issued for an area which may not be similar in size with the original area and as determined by the Executive Committee of the MADC. It was under such terms and condition that the Health Department came to be issued a fresh Land Lease Certificate for an area of 10139 Sq.m. In the remaining area of land, a number of individuals including writ petitioner came to be issued temporary land Passes. 13. As already noticed herein above, the petitioner was issued temporary LSC No. H/227/NS/L&R/015 on 08.12.2016. The same was thereafter converted or regularized into LSC No. PLSC/R/NS/47/2018 on 26.04.2018. Condition No. 5 stipulated in the body of the Pass provides that the land may be partly or wholly acquired by the District Council or Officer authorized by it for public purposes in accordance with the provisions of any law applicable in the District Council area. The same would go to show that the MADC is authorized to acquire land for public purpose, if the same is found to be necessary. In the present case, although the show-cause notice dated 27.09.2018 provides that there was requirement for land for public and therefore, the land owners concerned were required to show-cause why their respective land should not be cancelled, there is no mention about the intention to acquire the land. 14. In the present case, although the show-cause notice dated 27.09.2018 provides that there was requirement for land for public and therefore, the land owners concerned were required to show-cause why their respective land should not be cancelled, there is no mention about the intention to acquire the land. 14. The materials on record goes to show that it is not even the case of the respondents that the land Pass was illegally or conveniently secured by the petitioner. Although, an attempt has been made to show that the signatory in the Pass is the father of the writ petitioner but the fact remains that the decision to issue the land Pass rests with the Executive Committee of the MADC and the land pass of the petitioner indicates approval Letter No. D. 37013/1/2017/L&R(MADC) with the Executive Member of the MADC and the signatory of the issuing authority. Besides, there being a casual statement that the father of the petitioner was the Revenue Officer at the relevant time, there are no specific allegations of mala fide or connivance activity indulged in by the officer concerned. Therefore, the contention and stand of the respondents that the Pass was issued irregularly cannot be accepted. 15. It is true that the right to property is no longer a Fundamental Right but the same remains a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution and therefore, the petitioner could not have been deprived of her land in the manner it was done without acquiring the same or even by giving her some other alternative site. 16. Thus, upon due consideration, I find merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the impugned Order dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure-A), insofar as the cancellation of the land of the writ petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner with her allotted land. If her land is required for public purpose as contemplated, the same will have to be acquired as per the relevant law. 17. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands merged with this order. No costs.