Kombirei Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. v. State of Manipur
2022-09-23
M.V.MURALIDARAN
body2022
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT 1. By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order dated 13.4.2018 issued by the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, thereby cancelling the allotment orders issued in favour of the Kombirei Housing Co-operative Society Limited and its members and the order dated 14.10.2020, thereby allotting 12.90 Acres in C.S. Dag No.3002 (Part) corresponding to new C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4026, 4123, 4124 and 4125 in favour of Regional Research Laboratory, Jorhat. 2. Brief facts are as follows: The land under C.S. Dag No.3002 (Part) of Village No.91, Lamphelpat admeasuring 30 acres was initially allotted to Regional Research Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'RRL'], Jorhat in 1975 with a condition that the allotted land was to be used within 2 years of such allotment. In the year 1993, the State authorities, after giving due opportunity to the RRL cancelled the said allotment, as RRL failed to utilize the allotted land within the prescribed period. Thereafter, in the year 1995, the State authorities allotted 25 acres out of 30 acres of the land to the members of Kombirei Housing Co-operative Society Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'Society'] for residential purpose. After completion of all formalities, delivery of possession of the allotted land was given to the members of the Society and thereafter, the allottees have made considerable improvements thereto with a view to construct their dwelling houses. 2.1. Challenging the cancellation of their allotment as well as the allotment made in favour of the Society, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and RRL filed Civil Rule No.43 of 1996 before the Gauhati High Court. Pending CR.No.43 of 1996, the State authorities unilaterally, without giving any notice to the members of the Society, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the members of the Society and, at the same time, restored the original allotment made in favour of RRL on the basis of the report of the House Committee. 2.2. Challenging the order cancelling their allotment as well as the order restoring the allotment order of the RRL, the Society had filed CR.No.947 of 1998 before the Gauhati High Court.
2.2. Challenging the order cancelling their allotment as well as the order restoring the allotment order of the RRL, the Society had filed CR.No.947 of 1998 before the Gauhati High Court. By the order dated 16.11.2000, the learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court dismissed CR.No.43 of 1996 inter alia holding that CSIR and RRL have no enforceable right as there was no valid allotment of land in their favour andthe allotment made in their favour was null and void and non-est in the eye of law. Thus, the learned Single Judge allowed CR.No.947 of 1998 filed by the Society thereby quashing the Government Order restoring the original allotment of the RRL and further directed the State authorities to re-consider for allotment of the remaining portion of the disputed land to the CSIR and RRL without disturbing the allotment made in favour of the Society. 2.3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, WA.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001 were filed by the CSIR and RRL before the Gauhati High Court and a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, by the judgment dated 16.4.2015, disposed of the writ appeals by upholding the order of the learned Single Judge and declined to interfere with it. However, the Division Bench granted liberty to the State authorities to consider the recommendation of the House Committee and review the order of allotment of land made in favour of the RRL and also granted liberty to the State authorities to decide as to whether they should proceed with the cancellation of land allotted in favour of the members of the Society after following the process of law as provided in the MLR & LR (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. 2.4. Challenging the judgment dated 16.4.2015, the Society had filed SLP (C) Nos.14101-14102 of 2015 before the Apex Court. During pendency of the SLPs, the Under Secretary(Revenue) issued a show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 to the Secretary of the Society calling upon him to show cause in writing within 15 days as to why the recommendation of the House Committee should not be implemented. On 25.7.2016, the Secretary of the Society submitted a written reply. In the meanwhile, the SLPs were withdrawn by the Society and, accordingly, by the order dated 14.8.2017, the same are dismissed. 2.5.
On 25.7.2016, the Secretary of the Society submitted a written reply. In the meanwhile, the SLPs were withdrawn by the Society and, accordingly, by the order dated 14.8.2017, the same are dismissed. 2.5. After about 8 months from the date of the disposal of the SLPs, the first respondent [Secretary, Revenue] passed the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 thereby cancelling the allotment order dated 26.6.1995 issued by the Director of Settlement and Land Record, Manipur in favour of 95 members of the Society. Challenging the same, W.P.(C) No.392 of 2018 has been filed by the Society and W.P.(C) No.662 of 2019 has been filed by 38 members of the Society. 2.6. Pending W.P.(C) Nos.392 of 2018 and 662 of 2019, the Under Secretary (Revenue) issued an order dated 14.10.2020 thereby allotting 12.90 acres in old C.S. Dag No.3002 (Part), new C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4026, 4123, 4124 and 4125 in favour of the RRL for establishment of experimental cum demonstration firm of medical oil plant. Challenging the said order dated 14.10.2020, the Society filed WP.(C) No.580 of 2020 and 11 members of the Society filed WP.(C) No.172 of 2021 stating that the land covered by C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4002, portion of 4004, 4123, 4124 and 4125 are the main approach road, running inside the compound and within the boundary of the residential complex of the residents, community hall, playground of the residents and the land covered by C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4003, part of 4004 and 4026 are the drain/nullah encircled the whole residential plots of the land of the petitioners in WP.(C) No.172 of 2021 and other residents measuring 17.10 acres. According to the petitioners, allotment of nullah/drain is against the provisions of MLR & LR Act, 1960 and the easementary rights of the residents are affected. 3. Resisting the writ petitions, the State authorities filed affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it has been stated as under: On 11.3.1975, the Government accorded sanction and approval to the allotment of 30 acres of land within Lamphel area in favour of RRL under Section 14(1) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 [the respondent State stated that instead of quoting Section 14(2) of the Act, it has been mentioned under Section 14(1) of the Act] and had also issued an order dated 12.6.1975 for exemption of premium.
The wrong quoting of the provisions mentioned in the order itself does not invalidate the order, if it is found that the order could be validly passed under any other provisions. 3.1. The Government received representation from various individuals for cancellation of the allotment order made in favour of RRL alleging that the land has not been used for the purpose it has been allotted. Accordingly, on 14.10.1993 the Government issued a show cause notice to the Director, RRL and the RRL submitted a reply on 28.10.1993 stating that serious efforts being made to utilize the land allotted to them. It is also stated that they are facing problems in occupying the land and about erection of fencing by using security personnel. After careful consideration, the Government of Manipur issued an order dated 22.12.1993 cancelling the allotment of land measuring 30 acres under C.S. Dag No.3002 (Part). 3.2. On 26.8.1993, Kombirei Housing Co-operative Society Limited made an application to the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) to allot the area which is likely to be cancelled for nonutilization of the land earlier allotted in favour of RRL for the purpose of establishing of a model Housing Colony. The State Government conveyed its approval on 19.6.1995 and by the subsequent letter dated 19.9.1995 to the allotment of 17.10 acres i.e. 0.18 acre each to 95 members of the Society. Thereafter, on 26.6.1995, the Director of Settlement and Land Records issued allotment order allotting 0.18 acres each in favour of 95 members of the Society out of the land formally allotted to RRL. 3.3. It is stated that the allotment of the land in favour of the members of the Society was raised as Question No.269(A) before the House of Manipur Legislative Assembly by Mangi Singh MLA alleging that the former Revenue Minister made the said allotment to some members of his family and close relatives in violation of the constitutional norms and requested the Hon'ble Speaker to constitute a House Committee to inquire into the matter. After a discussion, on 27.3.1996, the House constituted a Committee consisting 7 MLAs to inquire into the allotment of land to 95 members.
After a discussion, on 27.3.1996, the House constituted a Committee consisting 7 MLAs to inquire into the allotment of land to 95 members. The House Committee after examination of the statements of the officers of the Revenue Department recorded during enquiry in connection with the allotment had submitted a report dated 26.9.1996 with a finding that the Statement Government shall review the order dated 22.12.1993 cancelling the original allotment to RRL and to review the order dated 26.6.1995 re-allotting the land to the members of the Society and the allotment of the land in favour of the RRL shall be restored. 3.4. On 12.3.1998, the Director of Settlement and Land Records reported that the land allotted to the Society has been lying un-utilized though the allotment was made on 26.6.1995. The State Government after considering the facts and circumstances of the matter as well as the recommendation of the House Committee is of the view that the terms and conditions of the allotment had been violated by the allottees. Therefore, the Government had issued an order dated 3.7.1998 ordering that the allotment dated 26.6.1995 as non-est and restored the allotment order dated 11.3.1975 allotting 30 acres of land in favour RRL. 3.5. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.1998 and 28.7.1998, both RRL and the Society filed CR.Nos.43 of 1996 and 947 of 1998 before the Gauhati High Court and by the order dated 16.11.2000, both the writ petitions were disposed of. Aggrieved by the same, W.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2021 were filed. By the judgment dated 16.4.2015, the writ appeals were disposed of with liberty. It is stated that pursuant to the liberty granted, a report had been called from the DS & LR on 13.5.2015. In response, the Director of Settlement and Land Records submitted his report on 16.6.2015 informing that there is no occupation or possession of the said land by 95 members of the Society. It is stated that as against the judgment passed in WA.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001, SLPs were preferred by the Society and the same have been later on withdrawn. After examining all the materials on record as well as the contents of the show cause notice and its reply, the Government had issued the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 cancelling the allotment order dated 26.6.1995 issued in favour of 95 members. 3.6.
After examining all the materials on record as well as the contents of the show cause notice and its reply, the Government had issued the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 cancelling the allotment order dated 26.6.1995 issued in favour of 95 members. 3.6. In regard to the impugned order dated 14.10.2020, the respondent State stated that the land under C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4026, 4123, 4124 and 4125 which were allotted to the RRL by the order dated 14.10.2020 are separate land to that of 17.10 acres of land earlier allotted to the members of the Society. The land allotted to the RRL, is free from legal encumbrances and the Society or its members have no right to claim over the land allotted to the RRL. 4. The RRL filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the name of the RRL/CSIR was recorded in the related revenue records after handing over and taking over possession of the allotted land and the office of RRL paying land revenue. It is stated that while the process of upgradation of RRL/CSIR was in progress, the Secretary (Revenue) issued notice dated 14.10.1993 as to why the allotment made in favour of them should not be cancelled on the allegation that 25 acres of land out of 30 acres of land in the north east side of the said laid was not utilized within two years from the date of allotment. The notice dated 14.10.1993 was suitably replied by the RRL stating that the utilization of the entire land was obstructed by the local people and also the threat meted out by them. 4.1. It is stated that the Government of Manipur vide order dated 22.12.1993 cancelled the allotment order without communicating the said order and an area of 17.10 acres were allotted to the Society consisting of 95 allottees who are most friends and relatives of the then Revenue Minister vide order dated 26.6.1995. It is stated that challenged the cancellation order dated 22.12.1993, CR.No.43 of 1996 has been filed and the Manipur Legislative Assembly had also constituted a House Committee to examine the proprietary of the cancellation of the allotment and the House Committee recalled the order of cancellation dated 22.12.1993 and the order of allotment dated 26.6.1995 made in favour of the Society/members of the Society was declared void ab-initio and non-est. 4.2.
4.2. It is stated that pursuant to the liberty granted by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in W.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001 to the State Government to consider the recommendation of the House Committee and to review the order of allotment of land made in favour of the members of the Society and also in exercise the liberty to the State Government to decide as to whether they should proceed for cancellation of land allotted in favour of the Society and its members after following due process of law, the Secretary (Revenue) has rightly issued the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 and there is no infirmity in it. Further the allotment of land vide the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 is also as per the provisions of the law and there is no arbitrariness in issuing such order. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. Assailing the impugned order dated 13.4.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner Society/allottees submitted that 95 members of the Society have acquired absolute right of ownership in respect of 17.10 acres in C.S. Dag No.3002(P) under allotment orders and registered deed of allotment and that in recognition whereof, necessary record of rights showing them as the absolute owners of the land and also possessors thereof has been prepared after their payment of the prescribed premium and taken possession of the land on being delivered to them. He would submit that such a valid allotment in their favour is not liable to be cancelled by the State Government and such being the case, the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 cannot be issued and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the State Government issued the impugned order without any jurisdiction and without any legislative authority and without following the due process of law. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 is unsustainable in law, as the same was issued mechanically without any application of mind or without holding any enquiry thereby seriously prejudicing and depriving the members of the Society of their valuable property. 7.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 is unsustainable in law, as the same was issued mechanically without any application of mind or without holding any enquiry thereby seriously prejudicing and depriving the members of the Society of their valuable property. 7. The learned counsel then submitted that the dispute between the parties has been in sub-judice since January 1996 when the CSIR and RRL filed CR No.43 of 1996 and during the pendency of the case, the House Committee was constituted behind the back of the members of the Society which took up the matter for inquiry and submitted a report condemning the allottees who are the members of the Society thereby recommending cancellation of the allotment made validly in favour of 95 allottees and by reviving the invalid and void allotment purported to be made in favour of the RRL. 8. The learned counsel next submitted that the official respondents acted in collusion and conspiracy with the RRL in not giving proper information to the House Committee and the Assembly about the matter of pendency of the Civil Rules filed by the parties and thus sub-judice before the Gauhati High Court, while at the same time withholding the real facts and circumstances in the true perspective from the said House Committee in a fraudulent and deceitful manner. In fact, the Secretary (Revenue) has no power or legislative authority to cancel the allotment order passed by the DS&LR which were made validly under the provisions of law, particularly when the allotment orders have created indefeasible rights in favour of 95 allottees. 9. The learned counsel urged that the State Government has not exercised its power bona fide in a fair and judicious manner, but issued the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 in colourable exercise of its powers even assuming but not admitting that it has such powers to invalidate or cancel the orders of DS&LR in favour of 95 allottees, the same cannot be done solely on the basis and recommendation of the House Committee without following due process of law and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to 95 allottees. 10.
10. The learned counsel further submitted that a manifestly invalid and legally non-existent allotment purported to be made in favour of RRL, which has been cancelled formally for contravention of the terms and conditions of the allotment contained in the statutory Allotment Rules and such cancellation being upheld by the High Court cannot and ought not to be revived in law solely on the basis of the report and recommendation of the House Committee, especially after the creation of absolute and indefeasible rights in favour of 95 allottees. 11. According to the learned counsel, the findings of the House Committee are vague and that the report of the House Committee does not show or disclose which requirement prescribed by the allotment rules has not been fulfilled by the members of the Society or which prescribed norm was violated in allotting the land to the members of the Society and why the allotment made in their favour could not stand in the eye of law. The cancellation of the allotment order made in favour of the Society on the basis of the report and recommendation of the House Committee is void ab-initio and non-est and that there has been a gross delay in issuing the cancellation order. 12. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the allotment and delivery of possession were made in the year 1995 after fulfilling all the terms and conditions and since then the allottees are in physical possession of the land for the last about 27 years and that they have made and are still making developments upon the allotted land, including construction of houses at the costs of huge hard earned money and expenditure. Further, the members of the Society have also been paying their land revenues till date and that they have fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the allotment prescribed under the rules. 13. The learned counsel argued that cancellation of the allotment order on the ground that the Society and its members have not fulfilled the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment order including non-utilization of the allotted land within two years from the date of allotment for the purpose for which it was allotted is absolutely false and without any basis.
The learned counsel argued that cancellation of the allotment order on the ground that the Society and its members have not fulfilled the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment order including non-utilization of the allotted land within two years from the date of allotment for the purpose for which it was allotted is absolutely false and without any basis. In fact, the RRL never carried out any activities in the land allotted to the Society and the payment of land revenue, if any, by the RRL is illegal and non-est, inasmuch as the allotment order made in their favour has already been cancelled long back on 22.12.1993 and the High Court has also declared the allotment order made in their favour to be void ab-initio. Therefore, there is no valid or justifiable reason for cancelling the allotment order made in favour of the Society or its members. As such, the impugned cancellation order dated 13.4.2018 deserves to be quashed. 14. As far as the subsequent allotment order dated 14.10.2010 thereby allotting land in respect of the land covered in C.S. Dag Nos.4125, 4123, 4002, 4004(P) and 4124 to RRL is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the said allotment of land is illegal, arbitrary, unfair and unjust and that the said allotment was without any application of mind and without holding any enquiry thereby seriously prejudicing and depriving the Society and its members/allottees of their valuable rights and also without due process of law. 15. The learned counsel further contended that the Society or its members have never been given any notice nor have they have been heard at all or given any opportunity whatsoever to have their say against the allotment of land measuring 7.90 acres covered by C.S. Dag Nos.4125, 4123, 4002, 4004(P), 4124, which are used by the members of the Society, to RRL while giving allotment along with other areas totally 12.90 acres vide order dated 14.10.2020. The impugned cancellation order dated 13.4.2018 was suspended by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2018 in W.P.No.392 of 2018 and the said order still continues, while so, the allotment of 12.90 acres in favour of RRL pending interim order is unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside. 16.
The impugned cancellation order dated 13.4.2018 was suspended by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2018 in W.P.No.392 of 2018 and the said order still continues, while so, the allotment of 12.90 acres in favour of RRL pending interim order is unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the same is also liable to be set aside. 16. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State submitted that originally the Director of Settlement and Land Records issued the order for allotting land measuring 30 acres in favour of RRL by exempting the premium for the purpose of public utility and delivery of possession of it was made on 20.1.1977 and thereafter, the name of RRL has been recorded in the land records. It is submitted that the State Government thereafter cancelled the allotment of the disputed land made in favour of the RRL vide order dated 22.12.1993. He would submit that thereafter, the members of the Society numbering 95 have been given allotment of land to the extent of 0.18 acre each out of the land allotted to the RRL with the approval of the Government on 26.6.1995. 17. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that since one of the Members of the Legislative Assembly raised a question before the Assembly in respect of the allotment of land to the members of the Society, a House Committee was constituted to inquire into the matter and the House Committee had submitted its report recommending review of the order dated 22.12.1993 cancelling the original allotment of 30 acres of land to the RRL and also to review the order dated 26.6.1995 re-allotting the land to the members of the Society. The Government after proper application of mind issued the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 thereby cancelling the allotment of land in favour of the members of the Society, which do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, as the same was done after a thorough investigation and had rightly recommended to restore the said 30 acres of land to the RRL. 18.
18. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the allotment of land measuring an area of 12.90 acres in favour of the RRL for establishment of experimental cum demonstration firm of medical oil plant vide order dated 14.10.2020 as per the recommendation of the State Cabinet though part of original 30 acres of land allotted to RRL in 1975 are separate land to that of 17.10 acres of the land earlier allotted to the members of the Society are free from legal encumbrances. Therefore, the writ petitions challenging the order dated 14.10.2020 are devoid of merit and not maintainable. Moreover, the allotment order dated 26.6.1995 thereby allotting 17.10 acres of land to 95 members of the Society was cancelled on 13.4.2018 and therefore, the Society or its members have no right and title over the land which was allotted to them. As such, the members of the Society or Society have no locus standi to challenge the order dated 14.10.2020 thereby allotting 12.90 acres of land to RRL. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the RRL submitted that the validity of an allotment order in favour of RRL does not depend upon the provision of the Section quoted in the order and the wrong quotation of provision in the order itself does not invalidate the order, if it is found that order was validly passed. In support, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Sadananda Sen, 2000(2) GLT 371. He would submit that the name of RRL was recorded in the related revenue records after handing over and taking over possession of the allotted land and RRL has also paid the land revenue. 20. The learned counsel further submitted that while the process for up-gradation of RRL was in progress, the Secretary (Revenue) issued a notice dated 14.10.1993 calling upon the RRL to explain as to why the allotment should not be cancelled on the allegation that 25 acres of land out of 30 acres in the north east side of the said land was not utilized within two years from the date of the allotment, for which the RRL replied that the utilisation of the entire land was obstructed by the local people and even the Scientist-in-charge posted at Imphal flee because of threat meted out to them. 21.
21. The learned counsel next submitted that the order dated 22.12.1993 cancelling the allotment order without communicating the order and an area of 17.10 acre was allotted to the Society consisting of 95 allottees who are mostly friends and relatives of the then Revenue Minister vide order dated 26.6.1995. Challenging the order dated 22.12.1993 and 26.6.1995, RRL filed CR.No.43 of 1996 and the House Committee constituted by the Manipur Legislative Assembly examined the proprietary of the cancellation of allotment made in favour of RRL and recalled the order of cancellation dated 22.12.1993 and that the order of allotment in favour of the members of the Society dated 26.6.1995 was declared void abinitio. 22. The Civil Rules filed by the Society and RRL went upto the Apex Court and finally, the Society had withdrawn the SLPs preferred against the judgment dated 16.4.2015 passed in W.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001. While disposing of the writ appeals preferred by the RRL, the Division Bench given liberty to the State Government to consider the recommendation of the House Committee and review the order of allotment of land in favour of the RRL and has also given liberty to the State Government to decide as to whether it should proceed for cancellation of the land allotted in favour of the members of the Society after following due process of law. Thereafter, after following the due process of law as directed by the Division Bench, the impugned cancellation order dated 13.4.2018 was issued by the State Government, which has got the jurisdiction and competency to issue the said order. 23. The learned counsel urged that the illegal occupation of the piece of land without any authority does not entitle to claim for the same. Further the allotment of said 17.10 acres of land was declared void ab- initio and non-est and the same was challenged by filing several writ petitions, which were admittedly not maintainable. 24. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 25. The grievance of the Society as well as well as the allottees of the land is that they have been in possession of the allotted land measuring 17.10 acres from 14.7.1995 when such possession was officially delivered to them by the concerned officer of the Settlement Department.
25. The grievance of the Society as well as well as the allottees of the land is that they have been in possession of the allotted land measuring 17.10 acres from 14.7.1995 when such possession was officially delivered to them by the concerned officer of the Settlement Department. While so, the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 came to be issued by the Secretary (Revenue) thereby cancelling the allotment made in favour of the members of the Society dated 26.6.1995 contrary to the provisions of law as well as by violating the principles of natural justice. 26. The case has chequered history, thus, needs to be explained for proper consideration of the issue. The authorities of RRL earlier approached the Government of Manipur for allotment of land within Lamphelpat area for taking up scientific and industrial research work in respect of medicinal and oil yielding plants etc. and on the basis of the request made by the RRL, the Government of Manipur, by the order dated 11.3.1975, allotted 30 acres of land in C.S. Dag No.3002(P) of Village No.91- A, Lamphelpat for establishment of experimental cum demonstration farm for medicinal and oil yielding plants etc. under Section 14(1) of MLR & LR Act, 1960 and premium for the purpose of such allotment was exempted vide order dated 12.6.1975. The possession of the land was stated to have been delivered to RRL by issuing a certificate for delivery of possession dated 20.1.1977. 27. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner- Society and its members a bare perusal of the order dated 11.3.1975 shows that the Government accorded sanction to the allotment of the disputed land measuring 30 acres to RRL under Section 14(1) of the Act and in the related allotment order dated 30.6.1975, it is shown that allotment will be subject to the terms and conditions laid down under Rule 15 of the MLR & LR (Allotment of Land) Rules and, as such, the allotment was made for establishment of experimental cum demonstration farm or medicinal oil plant. Further, case of the petitioner-Society is that since RRL has not utilised 25 acres from out of 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, after serving notice, the allotment was cancelled. 28.
Further, case of the petitioner-Society is that since RRL has not utilised 25 acres from out of 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, after serving notice, the allotment was cancelled. 28. On a perusal of the allotment order dated 11.3.1975, it is seen that said order was issued under Section 14(1) and not under Section 14(2) of the Act. For ready reference, Section 14 of the Act is quoted hereunder: '14. Allotment of land.-(1) The Deputy Commissioner may 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; and such rules may provide for allotment of land to persons evicted under section 15. (2) The Administrator 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 be 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. 29. The learned counsel for RRL submitted that assuming that there was any wrong recording of a provision of Rules in the allotment order, ipso facto, it cannot invalidate the order passed by the authority within its competence. 30. As could be seen from Section 14(1) of the 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 under Section 14(2), the State Government 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. Thus, this Court does not want to enlarge the said aspect any further, as the law is well settled that quoting a wrong provision of law cannot invalidate the order passed by the authority. 31. According to RRL, since obstruction raised by the local people from time to time in their attempt to encroach upon the land, the villagers have forcibly removed the barbed wire fencing put up by the RRL.
31. According to RRL, since obstruction raised by the local people from time to time in their attempt to encroach upon the land, the villagers have forcibly removed the barbed wire fencing put up by the RRL. In the meantime, the Government of Manipur issued show cause notice as to why the allotment of the land in question allotted to the RRL should not be cancelled, as the RRL has not utilized 25 acres out of 30 acres of land allotted within two years from the date of allotment for the purpose for which it was allotted and the said notice was served on the Director of RRL on 26.10.1993. On 28.10.1993, the Administrative Officer of RRL sent reply stating that all efforts are being made, however, due to the objection from the local people, no effective work could be taken up for development of activities of sub-station. Later on RRL came to know that portion of the land settled with the RRL was allotted to the members of the Society on 26.6.1995 for residential purposes subject to the conditions stipulated in the allotment orders. Taking advantage of the illegal order of allotment, the members of the Society started illegal occupation in the land belonging to the RRL by constructing road, filling earths, dismantling fencing and destroying various plants planted at the site for experimental purposes. When the authority of RRL requested for recalling those allotment orders, it was informed that the allotment of 30 acres of land in favour of RRL was cancelled on 22.12.1993. 32. Assailing the order dated 22.12.1993, the RRL filed CR No.43 of 1996 before the Gauhati High Court and pending CR No.43 of 1996, the State authorities cancelled the allotment order made in favour of the members of the petitioner-Society. Challenging the said cancellation, the Society had filed CR.No.947 of 1998 before the Gauhati High Court. By the common order dated 16.11.2000, the learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by RRL and allowed the writ petition filed by the Society. The operative portion passed in CR.No.43 of 1996 and CR.No.947 of 1998 reads thus: '19.
By the common order dated 16.11.2000, the learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by RRL and allowed the writ petition filed by the Society. The operative portion passed in CR.No.43 of 1996 and CR.No.947 of 1998 reads thus: '19. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, I am of the view that the writ petitioners in Civil Rule No.43 of 1996 have no enforceable legal rights in the instant case and, whereas, the writ petitioners in Civil Rule No.947 of 1998 have enforceable legal rights in the instant case and the impugned orders dated 3.7.1998 and 28.7.1998 as in Annexures A/15 and A/16 are not tenable in the eye of law as the same are violative of the principles of natural justice and rather, violative of the relevant provisions of law laid down under MLR & LR Act, 1960 and related Allotment of Land Rules, 1962 as discussed above and, accordingly, these two impugned orders marked as Annexures A/15 and A/16 to the writ petition (Civil Rule No.947 of 1998) are hereby quashed. 20. In the result, the writ petition being Civil Rule No.947 of 1998 is allowed and the writ petition being Civil Rule 43 of 1996 is dismissed but, no order as to costs. 21. The interim order passed on 16.11.1996 in Civil Misc. Application No.34 of 1996 (Civil Rule No.43 of 1996) stands vacated and merged with the judgment and order. 22. Despite dismissal of the writ petition being Civil Rule No.43 of 1996, I am constrained to make the following order and observation considering the nature of the case. 23. Dismissal of this Civil Rule No.43 of 1996 shall not stand on the way of the State respondents to allot the remaining portions of the disputed land to the petitioners in Civil Rule No.43 of 1996 without disturbing the allotment of land made to and in favour of the members/promoters of the petitioners-society in Civil Rule No.947 of 1998 under the related allotment order dated 26th June, 1995.' 33. Aggrieved by the said order, the RRL and CS&IR filed W.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001 and a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, by the common judgment dated 16.4.2015, disposed of the writ appeals. The operative portion of judgment reads thus: '14.
Aggrieved by the said order, the RRL and CS&IR filed W.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001 and a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, by the common judgment dated 16.4.2015, disposed of the writ appeals. The operative portion of judgment reads thus: '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 est 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.' 34. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, the petitioner-Society preferred SLP (C) Nos.14101-14102 of 2015 before the Apex Court and by order dated 14.8.2017, the said SLPs were dismissed as withdrawn and the merits of the case have not been gone into by the Apex Court. Thereafter, on 13.4.1998, the impugned order came to be passed by the Secretary (Revenue) cancelling the allotment made in favour of the members of the Society dated 26.6.1995. 35. The cancellation of the allotment order dated 13.4.2018 was issued mainly by relying upon the liberty given by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in W.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001. It is seen that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, a show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 was issued to the Society as to why the recommendation of the House Committee should not be implemented.
It is seen that pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, a show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 was issued to the Society as to why the recommendation of the House Committee should not be implemented. For proper appreciation, the show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 is extracted hereunder: 'No.4/1(59)/93-R (pt): Whereas, the House of Manipur Legislative Assembly constituted a house committee to enquire into the cancellation of allotment made in favour of Regional Research Laboratory-Horhat-6 Assam and subsequent allotment of land (part of the land already allotted to R.R.L. Jorhat) in favour of 95 members of Kombirei Housing Complex Society Ltd, a registered body. 2. Whereas, the said House Committee after thorough examination recommended as under:- (1) That the Govt. shall review the order dated 22nd December, 1993 cancelling the original allotment of 30 (thirty) acres of land to Regional Research Laboratory, Jorhat-6, Assam which is the actual patta holder of the land in question and also to review the order dated 26.6.95 re-allotting patta land to the private individual members of Kombirei Co-operative Society in violation of the Provisions of MLR & LR (Allotment of land) Rule, 1962. (2) That the lands allotted under the Govt. order dated 11.3.75 and 12.6.75 shall be resorted to the patta holders for the purposes for which it was allotted. 3. Now, therefore, this notice is given to show cause within 15 (fifteen) days in writing as to why the recommendation of the House Committee should not be implemented. 4. This issues in pursuance of the liberty given by the Hon'ble Division Bench, High Court of Manipur in its common judgment & order dated 16/04/2015 passed in Writ Appeals No.7 and 8 of 2001.' 36. The said show cause notice has been suitably replied by the Society. According to the members of the Society, the show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 was not served on the allottees and, therefore, the show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 37.
The said show cause notice has been suitably replied by the Society. According to the members of the Society, the show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 was not served on the allottees and, therefore, the show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 37. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate submitted that since the Secretary of the Society had filed an application dated 26.8.1993 in a representative capacity for allotment of land, it is not necessary for serving show cause notice to every member of the Society and the Secretary of the Society had submitted his reply and only after examining his reply, the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 cancelling the allotment dated 26.6.1995 was issued by the Director of Settlement and Land Records exercising inherent power. 38. When the members of the Society i.e. the allottees are directly involved, they should be issued notice prior to the issuance of the impugned order or prior to making any recommendation by the House Committee, as the case may be. On a perusal of the report/ recommendation of the House Committee, it is seen that the House Committee has made a recommendation behind the back of the allottees without giving them an opportunity of hearing. In this regard, the law is well settled that any such recommendation/order made without hearing the affected allottees would be void. 39. On a perusal of the report of the House Committee, it is also seen that one sided enquiry was conducted by the House Committee and accordingly it has submitted a report violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the implementation of the recommendation of the House Committee by the authority concerned is arbitrary. 40. As stated supra, the impugned cancellation order dated 13.4.2018 was issued mainly on the liberty given by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in W.A.Nos.7 of 8 of 201 that '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'. 41.
41. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 13.4.2018, this Court finds that the reason for issuing the said order has been stated by the Secretary (Revenue) in paragraph 14, which reads as under: '14. Whereas, all the relevant materials on record as well as the contents of the show cause reply dated 25.6.2016 submitted by Kombirei Housing Co-operative Society have been examined thoroughly and the Society has not fulfilled the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment order dated 26.06.1995 (including non-utilization of the allotted land within 2 years of the date of allotment for the purpose for which it was allotted) and after proper application of mind, it was observed that the submission of Kombirei Housing Co-operative Society was found not justified and not acceptable and further it is observed that the Regional Research Laboratory, Jorhat (Assam) has been carrying on R&D activities therein for the benefit of the general public and also paying land revenue of the allotted land till 2017.' 42. Admittedly, such a finding arrived at by the Secretary (Revenue) in passing the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The ground that the Society has not fulfilled the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment order dated 26.6.1995 i.e. non-utilization of the allotted land within two years from the date of allotment for the purpose for which it was allotted is concerned, this Court is of the view that land measuring an extent of .18 acre each in C.S. Dag No.3002(P) was allotted for homestead purposes in favour of 95 members of the Society and for that, deeds of allotment were executed between the allottees and the Director of Settlement and Land Records and possession was also handed over to the allottees on 14.7.1995, followed by payment of premium, which fact was admitted by the official respondents as well as the authorities of RRL. 43.
43. The materials produced by the respective counsel also show that after taking over possession of the allotted land, the members of the Society/allottees made considerable improvements in the land allotted to them with a view to construct their dwelling houses thereon till the early part of January, 1996 and the same would also be evident from the cancellation order dated 22.12.1993, wherein it has been stated that RRL failed to utilize the allotted land measuring 30 acres and kept lying unutilized thereby committed breach of the conditions of allotment and in violation of the Allotment Rules under Rule 15(vii) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. 44. Admittedly, the allotment of land to the RRL is way back in the year 1975 and since after a period of 18 years at the time of issuance of the cancellation order dated 22.12.1993, the RRL has not made any attempt to utilize and/or develop the land, the Secretary (Revenue) cancelled the allotment made in favour of RRL by citing Rule 15 (vii), which provides as under: '15. An allotment of land under sub section (1) of Section 14 shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (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 dates 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: Provided that no such cancellation or re-entry shall be made unless the allottee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.' 45. In the instant case, as could be seen from the materials produced by the parties, only the RRL has failed to utilize the land allotted to them to an extent of 30 acres within two years of the date of allotment and on noting that they failed to occupy and/or possess 25 acres of land, the Secretary (Revenue) cancelled the allotment order made in favour of RRL. On the other hand, 95 members of the Society have acquired the absolute rights of ownership in respect of 17.10 acres of the disputed land under the related allotment orders followed with possession and also payment of prescribed premium.
On the other hand, 95 members of the Society have acquired the absolute rights of ownership in respect of 17.10 acres of the disputed land under the related allotment orders followed with possession and also payment of prescribed premium. As stated supra, such allotment and possession of the land by 95 allottees is only after cancellation of the allotment issued in favour of RRL. 46. The learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no document to show that the members of the Society or the Society took possession of the land in question within the prescribed period. According to learned counsel for the petitioner-Society, the members of the Society have made considerable improvements in the land allotted to them without any objection from any quarter till the early part of January 1996. To disprove the contention of the petitioner-Society, no document and/or record has been produced either by learned Government Advocate or the learned counsel appearing for RRL. There is no record has been produced by the respondent State or the RRL to show that the allottees have misused the utilisation of the land for which it was allotted to them. 47. Indeed, the allottees have proved that they have taken possession of the land allotted to them and they have made improvements in the land also. The said fact was evidenced from the order dated 16.1.1996 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.34 of 1996 in CR.No.43 of 1996. For ready reference, the order dated 16.1.1996 is extracted hereunder: 'Heard also on Misc. Petition No.34 of 1996 for stay of operation of order dated 26.6.95 and 21.8.95 Annexure-A/21 and A/22 and also order dated 22.12.93 by which the order of allotment of 30 acres of land in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. This interim matter shall be listed for hearing after 2 (two) weeks. In the interim the respondents are directed not to carry out any work of development on the land in question. They are further directed not to dismantle or destroy any structure including fencing or any tree or plant in the said land. Learned Advocate General prays that such interim order may not preclude the State from taking steps to acquire or to cancel any order of allotment made in favour of any person. This prayer shall also be considered after 2 (two) weeks.' 48. From the order dated 16.1.1996, it is seen that Civil Misc.
Learned Advocate General prays that such interim order may not preclude the State from taking steps to acquire or to cancel any order of allotment made in favour of any person. This prayer shall also be considered after 2 (two) weeks.' 48. From the order dated 16.1.1996, it is seen that Civil Misc. Case No.34 of 1996 in CR.No.43 of 1996 has been filed by the Council of Scientific/RRL before the Guahati High Court seeking interim relief. While seeking interim relief, the RRL alleged that the Society or its members may be directed not to carry out any work of development on the land in question. This is clearly proves that the members of the Society/allottees took possession of the land allotted to them and had made developments thereto. While doing such developments by the allottees, the authorities of RRL approached the Court. Therefore, the question of not taking possession by the allottees within a period of 2 years as per Rule 15 (vii) canvassed by the learned Government Advocate has no merit. The materials produced by the allottees clearly show that they took possession of the land allotted to them within the prescribed period of two years and had made developments on it. 49. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention that the opinion of the House Committee that the land allotted to the RRL was in occupation and possession of the RRL since allotment and revenue rent was paid by the RRL being real pattadar and that the Revenue Department failed to observe the prescribed conditions laid down under MLR & LR (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 in the matter of cancellation of allotment order dated 11.3.1975 and 12.6.1975 respectively is not supported by any materials and is erroneous, in view of the order dated 22.12.1993 passed by the Secretary (Revenue). The fact remains that possession of the land allotted to the RRL was not taken by the RRL within the prescribed period of 2 years was clearly established by their own averments in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in W.P.(C) No.392 of 2018, wherein it has been stated as under: '5.
The fact remains that possession of the land allotted to the RRL was not taken by the RRL within the prescribed period of 2 years was clearly established by their own averments in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in W.P.(C) No.392 of 2018, wherein it has been stated as under: '5. That, with reference to para no.6 to 10, the deponent begs to submit that the name of the RRL/CSIR was recorded in the related revenue records after the handing over and taking over possession of the allotted land was made and the office of the deponent have been paying land revenue. The deponent further begs to submit that while the process of up-gradation of RRL/CSIR was in progress, the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur issued notice dated 14.10.1993 as to why the allotment of land should not be cancelled on the allegation that 25 acres of land out of 30 acres of land in the North East side of the said land was not utilized within 2 years from the date of allotment. The RRL replied the notice that the utilization of the entire land was obstructed by the local people and even the Scientist-in-charge posted at Imphal flee because of threat meted out to them.' 50. The aforesaid averments set out in the affidavit-inopposition of the RRL clearly show that from 11.3.1975 even till 14.10.1993, the RRL has not made any development in the land allotted to them and in fact they unutilised the allotted land measuring 30 acres for the purpose it was allotted to them and also violated Rule 15 (vii) and only after cancellation of the allotment, part of 17.10 acres from and out of 30 acres was allotted to the members of the Society with the approval of the Government of Manipur. 51. When the allotment of the land to the members of the Society is after following due process of law, cancelling such allotment unilaterally and without any notice that too based on the report of the House Committee that the Society consisting of 95 allottees who are mostly friends and relatives of the then Revenue Minister is erroneous. Nothing has also been produced by either the learned Government Advocate or the learned counsel for the RRL that 95 allottees are friends and relatives of the then Revenue Minister.
Nothing has also been produced by either the learned Government Advocate or the learned counsel for the RRL that 95 allottees are friends and relatives of the then Revenue Minister. Mere plea that most of the allottees are relatives and friends of Revenue Minister cannot be accepted and that too there was no objection from any quarter regarding the same. Since the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 is stated to have been issued pursuant to the liberty given by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in W.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001 to the State to decide as to whether they should proceed for cancellation of land allotted in favour of the members of the Society, this Court has dealt with the merits of the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 looking to the factual aspects obtained prior to the passing of the said order. Otherwise, this Court has not dealt with the issue beyond the verdict given by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court and are only threadbare analyzing the facts of the case on hand. 52. On a thorough reading of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in W.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2001, this Court is of the view that the Division Bench has not directed the authority concerned to cancel the allotment made in favour of the members of the Society/95 allottees and in fact, the Division Bench has not interfered with the finding of the learned Single Judge, who held that the cancellation of the allotment in favour of 95 allottees is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, as stated supra, the Division Bench only granted liberty to the State as to whether they should proceed for cancellation of the land allotted in favour of the members of the Society. 53. The reason for cancelling the allotment of the land stated by the Secretary (Revenue) in the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 is unacceptable and also before passing such order, the said authority has not heard the allottees, whose enforceable rights on the land in question exist on the date of passing of such order. Therefore, the order dated 13.4.2018 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 54. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental.
Therefore, the order dated 13.4.2018 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 54. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. The principle of natural justice literally means ? to hear the other side. This is necessary for providing a fair hearing and no doubt the rule against bias would also be a part of the procedure. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely, 'qui aliquid statuerit parte inauditaalteramactquam licet dixerit, haudacquumfacerit' that is, he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right' or in other words, as it is now expressed, 'justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done'. 55. Opportunity for hearing also includes personal hearing, apart from making written representation. Requirements of a fair hearing has two elements - First, opportunity to be heard must be given and second, such opportunity must be real and not illusory and make believe. A fair and reasonable hearing means a hearing which is adequate for the purpose of bringing before the officer who makes the decision all the relevant submissions. If fresh factual evidence is brought in and is likely to influence the decision, a fresh hearing should be given. 56. It is settled law that a decision arrived at without following natural justice is void. Here, in the in case on hand, the recommendation made by the House Committee and the decision taken by the Secretary (Revenue) in the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 thereby cancelling the allotment orders issued in favour of 95 allottees are without following the principles of natural justice. Merely, submitting a reply to the show cause notice dated 21.6.2016 by the Society and consideration thereof and passing impugned order does not mean that the affected parties have been afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. In fact, while issuing the impugned order dated 13.4.2018, the Secretary (Revenue) has not discussed about even the reply to the show cause given by the Secretary of Society. The said authority in paragraph 13 of the impugned order stated as under: '13.
In fact, while issuing the impugned order dated 13.4.2018, the Secretary (Revenue) has not discussed about even the reply to the show cause given by the Secretary of Society. The said authority in paragraph 13 of the impugned order stated as under: '13. Whereas, Kombirei Housing Co-operative Society submitted their show cause reply dated 25.06.2-016 to the Government, which amongst others observed that the recommendations of the House Committee was biased and one sided and the show cause notice was not issued to all the 95 members of the Society.' 57. From the above, it is clear that despite the Secretary of Society brought to the notice of the Under Secretary (Revenue) that all 95 members of the Society have not been issued show cause notice, no efforts have been made to issue show cause notice to 95 allottees nor heard them. There was no discussion in the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 about the non-issuance of show cause notice to 95 allottees before cancellation of the allotment orders dated 26.6.1995. In the absence of any prior notice served on 95 allottees and reply from them, passing of the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 thereby cancelling the allotment is in violation of the principles of natural justice, apart from merits, as discussed supra. 58. Coming to the non-utilisation of the land by the allottees stated in the impugned order dated 13.04.2018 is concerned, the same is unacceptable, in view of the findings arrived at by this Court in the earlier paragraphs. The fact remains that pursuant to the allotment orders, the allottees took possession of the land allotted to them within the prescribed period of 2 years and have also made developments thereto. As such, there is no violation of Rule 15 (vii) by the members of the Society/allottees or the Society, as the case may be. 59. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that 95 members of the Society have acquired the absolute right of ownership in respect of 17.10 acres of land in C.S. Dag No.3002(P) under the allotment orders and based on the allotment orders, necessary entries were made in the record of rights showing them as the absolute owners and also in possession of the same. In fact, only on payment of the required premium, possession of the land was delivered to them.
In fact, only on payment of the required premium, possession of the land was delivered to them. Therefore, such a valid allotment in favour of the allottees numbering 95 who are also the members of the Society cannot be cancelled unilaterally on the simple ground that they have violated Rule 15 (vii) of the Rules of 1962 and that too based on the report of the House Committee. 60. As stated supra, handing over possession of the allotted land to the allottees and took possession of the same within the prescribed period and also pursuant to the handing over of possession, they made developments in the land have been clearly proved by the allottees. In fact, when the allottees made developments in the year 1996 immediately after allotment made on 22.6.1995, the RRL filed CR No.43 of 1996. This clearly establishes that the allottees of the land have acquired possession of the allotted land within the prescribed period of two years. 61. A right has been conferred upon 95 allottees/members of the Society over the land measuring an extent of 17.10 acres in C.S. Dag No.3002(P) allotted to them and a valid allotment conferring a right in their favour cannot be treated or called as non-est or otherwise cancelled by the Secretary (Revenue) after a period of nearly 27 years. Further, the allottees were un-heard by the said authority before passing the impugned order thereby violating the established principles of natural justice. 62. On a thorough analysis of the materials produced by both sides, this Court is of the view that the finding of the respondent State qua allotment made in favour of 95 members to the extent of 17.10 acres of land being void ab-initio and nonest and restoring the earlier allotment made in favour of RRL based on the one sided recommendation of the House Committee is not only arbitrary, but also against the provisions of the MLR & LR Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 63.
63. This Court is also of the view that to exercise powers to revoke or cancel the allotment of order, the authority must have unbiased mind and consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved parties or party and decide the matter considering the principles of natural justice and the authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. 64. It is true that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be converted into an appeal. However, the High Court has the power and jurisdiction to see and examine and rather, to exercise its power of judicial review, if there is any infirmity in the decision making process and in the present case, it is found that there are lot of infirmities in the decision making process of the competent authority while issuing the impugned order dated 13.4.2018. 65. As stated supra, the Secretary (Revenue) has no powers or legislative authority to cancel the allotment orders issued by the Director of Settlement and Land Records, Manipur, which were made validly under the provisions of law, particularly when the allotment orders have conferred indefeasible rights in favour of 95 allottees. This Court is also of the view that the allotment made earlier in favour of RRL cannot be revived solely on the basis of the recommendation/report of the House Committee, especially after the creation of absolute and indefeasible rights in favour of 95 allottees. 66. In view of the discussions held supra, this Court is of the view that the allottees/members of the Society have been in possession of the allotted land measuring 17.10 acres from 14.7.1995 when such possession was officially delivered to them by the officer of the Settlement Department. The respondents, in particular RRL, have been conspiring to oust the said allottees from the allotted land who are for the last 27 years in possession as owner. Therefore, the Society and its members/95 allottees have a prima facie case to succeed in W.P.(C) Nos.392 of 2018 and 662 of 2019. Thus, the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 67.
Therefore, the Society and its members/95 allottees have a prima facie case to succeed in W.P.(C) Nos.392 of 2018 and 662 of 2019. Thus, the impugned order dated 13.4.2018 is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 67. Qua the challenge made to the impugned order dated 14.10.2020, allotment of 12.90 acres in favour of RRL through the said order was made pending consideration of W.P.(C) Nos.392 of 2018 and 662 of 2019 and the interim order suspending the cancellation order dated 13.4.2018. 68. According to the Society/allottees, on 30.6.1975, the Government of Manipur allotted 30 acres of land covered in C.S. Dag No.3002(P) to RRL under Section 14(1) of the Act and due to non-fulfilment of the conditions given in the Act and Rules, the allotment in favour of RRL was cancelled on 22.12.1993 and consequent upon the cancellation of the allotment of 30 acres, Revenue Department of the Government of Manipur approved to the allotment of 25 acres of land in favour of the Society. Out of 25 acres so approved, an area of 17.10 acres was allotted to 95 members for residential purposes on 26.6.1995 leaving 7.92 acres of main approach road to the Society's Housing Complex, Village Road running within the compound and boundary of the Housing Society's land. 69. As discussed supra, the Society and its members occupied the allotted land of 17.10 acres, however, by the impugned order dated 13.4.2018, the Secretary (Revenue) cancelled the allotment orders dated 26.6.1995 allotting 17.10 acres of land to 95 allottees on the ground that the allotted land was not occupied within two years. In fact, the order dated 13.4.2018 has been stayed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.392 of 2018 dated 9.5.2018 and W.P.(C) No.662 of 2019 dated 22.8.2019. While so, the under Secretary (Revenue) issued the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 thereby allotting 5 acres of land covered in C.S. Dag No.3002(P), new C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4026 and another portion of the land measuring 7.92 acres covered by C.S. Dag No.3002(P) corresponding C.S. Dag Nos.4002, 4004(P), 4123, 4124 and 4125. 70.
While so, the under Secretary (Revenue) issued the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 thereby allotting 5 acres of land covered in C.S. Dag No.3002(P), new C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4026 and another portion of the land measuring 7.92 acres covered by C.S. Dag No.3002(P) corresponding C.S. Dag Nos.4002, 4004(P), 4123, 4124 and 4125. 70. According to the allottees/Society, out of the above land, land covered by C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4002, 4004(P), 4123, 4124 and 4125 are the main approach road, village road running inside the compound and within the boundary of the residential complex of the resident allottees, community hall, playground and now presently occupied by the allottees. He submits that the land covered by C.S. Dag Nos.4001, 4003, 4004(P) and 4026 are the drain/nullah encircled the whole residential plots of land of the allottees measuring 17.10 acres and that allotment of nullah/drain is not allowed under the Act of 1960. In fact, there is no way to come out and to come in i.e. ingress and egress of the residents and also the easementary rights of them were affected. 71. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that no fundamental rights of the allottees have been infringed/violated and no easementary rights of them are affected by the impugned allotment order dated 14.10.2020 and moreover, writ court is not the appropriate forum for claiming easementary rights. 72. As could be seen from the materials produced by the parties, out of 25 acres approved for allotment to the Society and its members, 17.10 acres have been used by the allottees and the remaining 7.90 acres have been used as main approach road, pathways, playground, community hall etc. When 12.90 acres had been given allotment to RRL through the impugned order dated 14.10.2020, 7.90 acres of land which was already utilised by the Society and its members/allottees were also included. 73. Upon analysing the materials produced by both sides, this Court is of the view that the allotment of 12.90 acres to RRL, including those occupied by the Society/members of the Society, has blocked the way to come out and come in of the members attracting easementary rights.
73. Upon analysing the materials produced by both sides, this Court is of the view that the allotment of 12.90 acres to RRL, including those occupied by the Society/members of the Society, has blocked the way to come out and come in of the members attracting easementary rights. Since this Court has tested the genuineness of the cancellation order dated 13.4.2018, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has gone into the plea raised by the Society/members of the Society about their easementary right affected by the allotment of 12.90 acres in favour of the RRL. Thus, the order impugned in W.P.(C) No.580 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.172 of 2021 is liable to be quashed. 74. In the result, (i) The writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The order dated 13.4.2018 impugned in W.P.(C) Nos.392 of 2018 and 662 of 2019 is set aside. (iii) The order dated 14.10.2020 impugned in W.P.(C) No.580 of 2020 and 172 of 2021 is set aside. (iv) No costs.