Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 505 (GAU)

State Of Nagaland, Kohima v. Avio Naleo

2022-05-13

DEVASHIS BARUAH, SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2022
JUDGMENT : [Devashis Baruah, J.] 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General and Mr. T.B. Jamir, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Nitya Nambin and Mr. Vitsorio, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland. We have also heard Mr. A. Zho, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants in WA No.34(K)/2010 and WA No.35(K)/2010 and Mr. Imkong Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent. 2. All the 4 (four) appeals arises out of the common judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 and WP(C) No.60(K)/2006. In order to appreciate and consider the appeals before us which challenges the legality of judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 (for short referred to as the impugned judgment and order), it would be relevant to take note of the facts of the case. For the sake of convenience, the Parties herein are referred in the same status as they stood in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006. CASE OF THE PETITIONERS IN WP(C) NO.31(K)/2006 3. The writ petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 claim that after the 1970 Re-settlement operation, a plot of land measuring 40 Bighas was allotted by the competent authority in favour of the Petitioner No.1 under Dag No.36 covered by Patta No.19 on 12.08.1971. On the basis of the said allotment, as claimed by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006, the name of the Petitioner No.1 was duly recorded in the revenue records i.e. in the Chitha Register and the Jamabandi maintained in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur. As the Petitioner No.1, was suffering from serious illness, he by a Power of Attorney dated 17.05.1991 appointed the Petitioner No.2 to represent him before any Court in connection with the land covered by Dag No.36 of Patta No.19. On that very day, the Petitioner No.2, as the Attorney of the Petitioner No.1, lodged a written complaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, complaining that the Respondent No.3 had started encroaching upon the land of the Petitioners. On that very day, the Petitioner No.2, as the Attorney of the Petitioner No.1, lodged a written complaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, complaining that the Respondent No.3 had started encroaching upon the land of the Petitioners. The said complaint was not responded to by the Revenue Authorities for which another complaint was filed in the 1st week of September, 1991 and thereupon the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur vide an order bearing No.LD-14/91/D dated 09.09.1991 directed both the Petitioners and the Respondent No.3 to occupy their own lands at 7th Mile according to the allotments under Dag No. 2, Dag No.6 and Dag No.36 respectively. 4. It is the further case of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 that pursuant to the order dated 09.09.1991, the Petitioners continued to possess the land without any disturbance. However, between 2002-03, the Respondent No.3 using physical force brought a stone crusher to the land of the Petitioners thereby started encroaching again, for which, the Petitioners objected and submitted several written complaints to the competent authorities to take necessary action against the Respondent No.3. Subsequent thereto, on 01.10.2005, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, vide an order bearing No.VLS-4/95-D/10007-10 rectified the Patta No.14 whereby a plot of land under part of Dag No.6, measuring 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas was recorded in the name of the Respondent No.3. 5. The Petitioner No.2 vide a communication dated 07.11.2005, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland, (Respondent No.2) requested for issuance of necessary orders to identify the land under Dag No.36 covered by Patta No.19 at 7th Mile, Dimapur in order to prevent breach of peace between the parties and also sought review of the rectification order No. VLS- 4/95-D/10007-10 dated 01.10.2005 for the interest of justice and to maintain peace in the locality. The Respondent No.2 vide a communication requested both the Petitioners and the Respondent No.3 to appear in his Office on 24.11.2005. 6. Thereupon vide an order dated 06.12.2005, the application filed by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that the petitioners could not submit relevant documents pertaining to allotment or settlement of the land measuring 40 Bighas covered by Dag No.36 of Patta No.19, for which, it was held that the request for rights over Dag No.6 and Dag No.36 by the petitioner No.2 and demarcation thereof cannot be allowed. The order dated 06.12.2005 further directed that on the basis of the long standing and continued occupation over the disputed land, the respondent No.3 was allowed to enjoy his rights over the disputed land. It was further directed that rectification be made in the land records and the name of the Petitioner No.1 be deleted from Dag No.6 and Dag No.36. 7. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 01.10.2005 and 06.12.2005, the Petitioners filed a writ petition initially before the Principal Seat of this Court challenging those orders, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.8519/2005. The said writ petition subsequently on transfer to the Kohima Bench of this Court was re-registered and renumbered as WP(C) No.31(K)/2006. At this stage, it may be relevant to take into consideration the grounds taken in the said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.31(K)/2006. The primary contention in the said writ petition was that the orders dated 01.10.2005 and 06.12.2005 were in violation to the Office Memorandum No.LR/4-3/KOH/2003 dated 26.07.2005 issued by the Secretary, Land Revenue Department, Government of Nagaland, whereby the existing powers vested upon the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Officer/Revenue Officer and Extra Assistant Commissioner for allotment of Government land or cancellation of permit were withdrawn with immediate effect. It was also contended that the impugned orders were in violation to Article 300A of the Constitution of India and has been passed arbitrarily and for extraneous reasons. CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) NO.31(K)/2006 8. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the official Respondents in the said writ petition filed a joint affidavit in opposition supporting the orders dated 01.10.2005 and 06.12.2005. In supporting the order dated 01.10.2005, it was stated that Patta No.14 contained two Dags. One was Dag No.2 which measured 23 Bighas 2 Kathas 0 Lechas and was initially recorded in the name of the Respondent No.3 and Mr. Whedi, son of Late Vipon Angami. Out of the said 23 Bighas 2 Kathas 0 Lechas, 13 Bighas 1 Katha 16 Lechas was mutated in the name of Kohima District Cooperative Milk Producer Union Ltd. vide Mutation Case No.M-111/94/5143-45 dated 19.07.1994 and the remaining 10 Bighas 0 Katha 4 Lechas was recorded in the name of the Respondent No.3. Whedi, son of Late Vipon Angami. Out of the said 23 Bighas 2 Kathas 0 Lechas, 13 Bighas 1 Katha 16 Lechas was mutated in the name of Kohima District Cooperative Milk Producer Union Ltd. vide Mutation Case No.M-111/94/5143-45 dated 19.07.1994 and the remaining 10 Bighas 0 Katha 4 Lechas was recorded in the name of the Respondent No.3. As regards Dag No.6, the revenue records showed that the land measuring 101 Bighas 3 Kathas 0 Lecha was recorded in the name of the Respondent No.3 but on the ground, the Respondent No.3 was in possession of land measuring 161 Bighas 3 Kathas 0 Lecha. Out of the said 161 Bighas 3 Kathas 0 Lecha, 101 Bighas 3 Kathas 11 lechas fell within NH39 Road Reservation unregularised and 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas unregularized. It was further mentioned that though the Chitha records showed a land measuring 40 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha was recorded in the Petitioner No.1 bearing Patta No.19 of Dag No.36, there was no mention of settlement order or approval order. It was also mentioned that the said land was under the occupation of the Respondent No.3. 9. A further perusal of the Affidavit-in-Opposition showed that the then Deputy Commissioner of Naga Hills vide an order dated 13.01.1950, allowed settlement of 40 Bighas of land between Diphu River and I.B. Road at 7th Mile to one Mr. Vipon Angami, Contractor, Eyore Naga and 8 others of Viswema Village on the usual condition that the whole area is completely brought under cultivation within 2 years failing which the settlement would be cancelled. In the said Settlement Order, it was mentioned that the question of giving the said persons more land would be considered later. Subsequently, on an application filed by Vipon Angami (since deceased) dated 23.01.1967 the then Deputy Commissioner ordered that whatever land occupied by Late Vipon Angami should be measured and allotted as originally ordered by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, on 02.07.1968, the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima issued an order whereby the settlement of land measuring 128 Bighas instead of 40 Bighas was made in favour of the said Sri. Vipon Angami between 6th and 7th Mile on D.I. Road on annual lease basis. 10. The further stand of the Official Respondents in their Affidavit-in- Opposition was that in the year 2005, both the Respondent No.3 and one Mr. Vipon Angami between 6th and 7th Mile on D.I. Road on annual lease basis. 10. The further stand of the Official Respondents in their Affidavit-in- Opposition was that in the year 2005, both the Respondent No.3 and one Mr. Whedi Angami filed an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur stating inter alia that 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas, which were in their occupation ought to be regularized in their name under Naga Customary Law as well as the established principles of law. The Respondent No.3 also vide another application stating inter alia that the land under Lt. Vipon Angami occupation extended uptill Dag No.8 but only 128 Bighas were allotted to Late Vipon Angami. It was further mentioned by Respondent No.3 in his application that some persons were claiming a portion of the land by artificial creation of Dag No.36 between Dag No.6 and Dag No.8 for which the Respondent No.3 sought for re-survey of the land. The re-survey was conducted on 09.09.2005. It was mentioned by the Respondent No.3 in his application that the creation of Dag No.36 over the land of the Respondent No.3 without their knowledge or notice upon the Respondent No.3 was illegal, more so, when the Respondent No.3 was in physical possession of the said land. The application of the Respondent No.3 further stated that due to technical error only 128 Bighas was allotted to Late Vipon Angami and the excess 40 Bighas of land was only a recent discovery and accordingly requested the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the Jamabandi of the Petitioner No.1 and delete his name from the Chitha Book and regularize the 40 Bighas of land in the name of the Respondent No.3. 11. The further stand of the official Respondents in their Affidavit in Opposition was that considering the prayer of the Respondent No.3 and his brothers, the Deputy Commissioner rectified the Patta No.14 by issuing the order No.VLS-4/95-D/10007-10 dated 01.10.2005 wherein a plot of land under part of Dag No.6 measuring an area of 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas was included in Patta No.14 in the name of Respondent No.3. It was mentioned that the said land of 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas had no relation to the disputed land between the Respondent No.3 and the Petitioners, for which the Petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order dated 01.10.2005. It was mentioned that the said land of 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas had no relation to the disputed land between the Respondent No.3 and the Petitioners, for which the Petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order dated 01.10.2005. As to whether the Office Memorandum No.LR/4-3/KOH/2003 dated 16.07.2005 would be applicable, it was mentioned that the said Office Memorandum would be only applicable to the Government lands; and Dag No.6 of the 7th Mile Modern village or part of it although not regularized in the name of Respondent No.3 but prior to the issuance of the order dated 01.10.2005 was never earmarked as the Government land in the Chitha Book, and as such the question of taking permission from the Government did not arise. Further it was also mentioned that the order dated 01.10.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner was not a fresh allotment of land but it was only a rectification of the records as regards the earlier technical error of measurement of land. 12. Supporting the order dated 06.12.2005, the Official Respondents in their Affidavit-in-Opposition stated that the Petitioner No.1 had obtained the Jamabandi illegally from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner without obtaining any allotment order from the Deputy Commissioner or from the Additional Deputy Commissioner. It was stated by making reference to the 2nd application filed by the Respondent No.3 that the Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the parties in detail and examining the witnesses and documents produced by them found that the petitioners could not produce the settlement order and could not occupy the land so claimed to have been allotted to the Petitioner No.1 by the Government. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 06.12.2005 whereby on the basis of long standing and continued occupation over the disputed land, the Respondent No.3 was permitted to enjoy his rights over the disputed land and directed the name of the Petitioner No.1 be deleted from the records and rectify the land records. 13. The Respondent No.3 also filed an affidavit in opposition which was similar in content to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 14. 13. The Respondent No.3 also filed an affidavit in opposition which was similar in content to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 14. From the pleadings on record, it would therefore, transpire that vide an order dated 01.10.2005, a plot of land under part of Dag No.6 measuring 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 19 Lechas at 7th Mile was rectified under Patta No.14 in the name of the Respondent No.3. It further transpires from the order dated 06.12.2005 that as the Petitioners had failed to produce any document(s) pertaining to allotment and/or settlement of land, the Deputy Commissioner came to a finding that it was unlikely that any new dag was created in order to accommodate an allotment as for creation of new dag number or patta there is a requirement to have a reference of the original number in the land record entries for which, the Deputy Commissioner had come to finding that the records so submitted by the Petitioners were not reliable and appears without any doubt to be fabricated. The Deputy Commissioner did not stop there but went further to direct that on the basis of long standing and continued occupation over the disputed land, the Respondent No.3 was allowed to enjoy his rights over the disputed land, i.e. the land between the Dag No.6 and Dag No.8 which was the artificially created Dag No.36 of Patta No.19 measuring 40 Bighas. CASE OF THE PETITIONER IN WP(C) NO.60(K)/2006 15. While the said writ petition being WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 was pending, the Respondent No.3 as a writ petitioner filed a separate writ petition challenging the various Notifications/Office Memorandums bearing Notification No.LR/2-21/88 dated 26.10.1992; Notification No.LR/2-21/88 dated 10.11.1993; Office Memorandum No.LR/2-21/88 dated 10.11.1993; Notification No.LR/2-21/84 dated 02.02.1996; Office Memorandum No.LR/2- 6/93(pt) dated 10.06.1996 and the Office Memorandum bearing No.LR/4-3/KOH/2003 dated 26.07.2005. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.60(K)/2006. The Notifications and Office Memorandums challenged in WP(C) No.60(K)/2006 are collectively referred to herein below as “the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums”. 16. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.60(K)/2006. The Notifications and Office Memorandums challenged in WP(C) No.60(K)/2006 are collectively referred to herein below as “the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums”. 16. By the said writ petition, the Respondent No.3 as Petitioner therein challenged the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums on the ground that the same are not consistent with the provisions of the parent law i.e. the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation Act, 1886, (for short “The Regulation”); by way of executive instructions, the respondent authorities were trying to override the statutory provisions and the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums were in violation to Article 300A and Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India and Section 6 of the Regulation. CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) NO.60(K)/2006 17. The Respondent No.2 had filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition. A completely contrary stand was taken in Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the official respondents to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by official respondents in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006. In the said Affidavit-in-Opposition, it was stated that the rectification of Patta No.14 vide the order dated 01.10.2005 involved alteration of the boundaries pertaining to a huge area of land which required prior approval of the Government and as the order dated 01.10.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner was done without the approval of the State Government, consequently the same was illegal and void. It was mentioned that the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums were issued in accordance with Rule 1(1) and Rule 60 of the Rules of Settlement framed under the Regulation and as such the Deputy Commissioner/the Additional Deputy Commissioner were expected to adhere to the said impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums strictly. It was also mentioned that the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums were issued under the Executive Powers of the State conferred under Article 154(1) and Article 166 of the Constitution of India and as well as under the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules of Executive Business, 1980, framed under the Constitution of India and as such, the question of overriding the statutory provisions did not arise at all. Further, a stand was taken that the special provisions of Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India would deal only with Naga Customary Law and Procedure and ownership and transfer of land and its resources and as such the settlement holders and patta holder are absolutely outside the purview of Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India. Further, a stand was taken that the special provisions of Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India would deal only with Naga Customary Law and Procedure and ownership and transfer of land and its resources and as such the settlement holders and patta holder are absolutely outside the purview of Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India. It was also mentioned that the Section 6 of the Regulation was not applicable to the State of Nagaland. 18. To the said Affidavit-in-Opposition, a rejoinder affidavit was filed by the Respondent No.3 who was the Petitioner in WP(C) No.60(K)/2006 stating inter alia that the Nagaland Code Volume-I published by the State of Nagaland had categorically stated that the Regulation would be applicable. It was also mentioned that vide a Gazette Notification No. LR/16/73 dated Kohima 22.04.1976, it was stated that the provisions of Regulation would be fully applicable in Dimapur Mouza, and the spirit of it is to be followed in the rest of the State of Nagaland. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein who were the Petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 also filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition adopting a similar stand as was taken in their Writ Petition i.e. WP(C) No.31(K)/2006. THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & ORDER 19. Both the writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge and by a common judgment and order dated 19.11.2010; WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 was dismissed whereas WP(C) No.60(K)/2006 was allowed by quashing the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums. In doing so, the learned Single Judge came to a finding that the Petitioner No.1 had neither referred to nor produced any order of settlement by the competent revenue authority allotting the land measuring 40 Bighas covered by Dag No.36 of Patta No.19 in the Petitioner No.1’s favour in accordance with the law. The said Jamabandi upon which the Petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 relied upon also does not show that the said entry in the Jamabandi was on the basis of any allotment or settlement order. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that from a plain reading from the of the Power of Attorney produced by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006, it would demonstrate that the Petitioner No.1’s age on the date of the alleged settlement was about 6 years and therefore, it was incomprehensible even otherwise that such settlement was made in favour of the Petitioner No.1 as he was a minor then. The land revenue receipts being of the same date i.e. 08.03.2005 do not irrefutably authenticate the claim for settlement made in favour of the Petitioner No.1. The official respondents have also denied such settlement in favour of the Petitioner No.1 and consequently the order dated 06.12.2005 by the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur could not be denounced as illegal, absurd or indifference of logic. As regards the order dated 01.10.2005, the learned Single Judge observed that the said order essentially has to be construed as a fresh settlement in favour of the Respondent No.3 as the same being beyond 128 Bighas allotted to his father by the order dated 02.07.1968 of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima District, Nagaland. Thereupon the learned Single Judge held that the embargo imposed on the allotment/settlement of the Government land without the Government’s prior approval was apparently repugnant to the provisions of the Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder and accordingly held that the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums were ultra vires. Consequently, the learned Single Judge upheld both the orders dated 01.10.2005 and 06.12.2005 by allowing the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.60(K)/2006 and dismissed the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.31(K)/2006. 20. Being aggrieved with the said common judgment and order, the Petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 had filed 2 (two) Writ Appeals being WA No.34(K)/2010 and WA No.35(K)/2010 and the State of the Nagaland has filed 2 (two) Writ Appeals being WA No.6(K)/2011 and WA No.7(K)/2011. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNSELS A. For the State of Nagaland, the learned Advocate General submitted as follows: i) That the Regulation read as a whole would show that for allotment of land, approval of the Government is mandatory as the various provisions in the Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder provides for such prior approval at various stages of allotment of land by the functionaries of a State. It was submitted that the Government has the overall Superintendence over the allotment of the land. The Regulation along with the Rules framed thereunder cannot be read in isolation as was done by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the same would defeat the object and intent of the Legislature behind allotment of land to individuals. In support of the said, the learned Advocate General relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prakash Kumar Vs. In support of the said, the learned Advocate General relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prakash Kumar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2005) 2 SCC 409 ; Reserve Bank of India Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. reported in (1987) 1 SCC 424 and Anwar Hasan Khan Vs. Mohd. Shafi reported in (2001) 8 SCC 540 and submitted that no part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation and every word of the statute have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It was submitted on the basis of the said judgments that a statute is best interpretated with a knowledge as to why it was enacted and as such after having the knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole, then Section by Section, Clause by Clause, Phrase by Phrase and Word by Word. ii) It was submitted that the Chapter-III of the Regulation deals with Settlement and Resumption. This Chapter envisages a detailed procedure for Settlement of land under the supervision and surveillance of the Government. As per Section 17, the Settlement Operation will consist of survey and demarcation; assessment of land revenue of the land and record of rights. As per Section 18, when any local area or class of an estate is to be settled, the State Government may issue a notification of settlement defining the local area or class or estate to be settled and specify Settlement Operations to be carried out. Section 20 empowers the State Government, by Rule, to direct that Chapter-III or any or more Sections or portions of Sections thereof shall not apply to any local area or to the Settlement of any particular class of estate. Part B of Chapter-III deals with Survey and Demarcation of Lands. Section 27 empowers the State Government to make Rules prescribing the mode in which any survey conducted under the provisions of Part-B shall be effected and the manner in which all the cost of such survey, compensation due on account of anything done under the orders of survey officer and all expenses incurred under Part B in erecting and repairing boundary marks shall be apportioned amongst and levied from the proprietors and land holders and persons entitled to receive rent in respect to the land. Part-C of Chapter-III deals with Assessment of Land. In terms with Section 28 which falls in Part-C, all lands shall be deemed to be liable to be assessed to revenue except those lands mentioned in Sub-Sections (a) and (b) of Section 28. Section 32 empowers the Settlement Officer to offer the settlement to such person as he finds to be in possession of the estate and to have a permanent, heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy of the same or to be in possession as mortgagees of persons having such right. Sub-Section (2) of Section 32 stipulates that if the Settlement Officer finds no person in possession, it shall be in his discretion, subject to such Rules as the State Government may make under Section 12 to offer the settlement to any person, he thinks fit. Section 34 deals with the Effect of Acceptance of Settlement. It stipulates that the revenue fixed thereby and no more shall be payable from such date and for such term as the State Government may fix when a Settlement has been accepted. Part-D of Chapter-III deals with the Record of Rights and stipulates in terms with Section 40 the Settlement Officer shall frame for each estate a record of rights in the prescribed manner. By referring to those provisions and more particularly Proviso 1(b) of Section 34, the learned Advocate General submits that a Settlement shall not be final as against the Government until it has been sanctioned by the State Government and as such, the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums regulating/prohibiting the allotment/settlement of land are relevant for the purpose of affecting a settlement as against the Government. He further submits that the Proviso 1(b) of Section 34 was not taken into consideration in the proper perspective by the learned Single Judge for which the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and quashed. He submitted that the learned Single Judge though referred to the said Proviso 1(b) of Section 34 of the Regulation in Paragraph 29 of the impugned judgment but without assigning any reasons simply stated that the said Proviso would not imply that prior approval of the State Government is a condition precedent for settlement and as such the said findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge was against the express provision in the Regulation and liable to be interfered with by this Court. iii) The learned Advocate General further submitted that the learned Single Judge lost sight of the express provisions of the Regulations detailing the procedure for settlement of land and the subsequent stages where the supervision and approval of the Government is mandatory. It was submitted that from the stage where the allotment of land i.e. settlement of land to subsequent stages like attachment of defaulting estate to annulment of settlement, Government sanction is necessary. The learned Advocate General therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge having not read the Regulation as a whole have erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and order thereby setting aside the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums. iv) The learned Advocate General also submitted that the legality and validity of the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums can also be looked at from another angle. He submits that the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums relates to imposing an embargo upon the Revenue Officers in exercising their powers to settle/allot Government lands. Referring to Chapter VII of the Regulation and Rule 1(1) of the Settlement Rules; the learned Advocate General submitted that the State Government being the Chief Controlling Authority and all powers of the Revenue Officers being subject to special and General orders of the State Government, the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums cannot said to be ultra vires the Regulation and the Rules framed therein under. v) It was further submitted that though it is well settled that the Government cannot issue a notification that militates against the parent statute or the Government cannot whittle down the effect of parent statute, by bringing a notification in the form of a byelaws or in the form of executive instructions, but it is equally well settled that the Government has the power to issue notification(s) in order to make the implementation of the statute or any provisions of the statute to be more meaningful and effective. He further submitted that it is no longer res-integra that the Government has the power to issue notifications in the form of byelaws or executive instructions to fill in the gaps or cover any lacuna in the implementation of the statute if the statutory scheme does not cover a given situation or exigency or the expediency. He further submitted that it is no longer res-integra that the Government has the power to issue notifications in the form of byelaws or executive instructions to fill in the gaps or cover any lacuna in the implementation of the statute if the statutory scheme does not cover a given situation or exigency or the expediency. It was submitted that as by virtue of the Proviso 1(b) to Section 34, a settlement shall not be final as against the Government until it has been sanctioned by the State Government, the same clearly shows that the State Government as the final authority to settle the land in favour of the applicant and as such the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums so issued was in consonance with the Proviso 1(b) of Section 34 of the Regulation. In that regard, the learned Advocate General relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Joint Action Committee of Airline Pilots Association of India (ALPAI) and Others Vs. The Director General of Civil Aviation and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 . vi) The learned Advocate General further submitted that allotment/settlement of lands to private individuals amounts to granting State Largesse to any person and the same cannot be done at the sweet will of the political entities and the officers of the State. In order to put a check on the said illegalities being committed, the Government of Nagaland since 1973, have restricted the allotment of land without taking the prior permission of the State Government by issuing various Office Memorandums/Notifications. The same are in consonance with the very objective that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities actions to grant State Largesse or confer benefits must be founded on a sound, transparent discernible and well defined policy. He submits, a perusal of the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums would show that the same have been issued in order to check upon the erring officers from allotting land to anybody without taking a specific prior approval of the Government throughout the State. He submits, a perusal of the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums would show that the same have been issued in order to check upon the erring officers from allotting land to anybody without taking a specific prior approval of the Government throughout the State. He, drawing the attention to the Office Memorandum dated 26.07.2005 submits that there is also acute scarcity of Government land and allotment/settlement of land(s) without taking the prior approval of the Government would causes serious administrative difficulties upon the State Government and this aspect of the matter was totally ignored by the learned Single Judge, for which the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and quashed. B. Mr. A. Zho, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in WA No.34(K)/2010 and WA No.35(K)/2010 submitted as follows. i) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.3 was an encroacher in respect of 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas of land and he had no right to get settlement over the encroached land. The allotment so made by the Deputy Commissioner of 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas by way of rectification carried out to the Patta No.14 was in fact a Settlement which, the learned Single Judge also held as Settlement. He submits that the said Settlement was dehors the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums and as such the settlement without the prior approval of the State Government was bad in law and liable to be interfered with. ii) He further submitted that a perusal of Section 12 of the Regulation would show that in case of any land over which no person has right of proprietor, land holder or settlement holder under the regulation, the State Government is empowered to frame Rules to provide inter alia for ejectment of any person who has entered into unauthorisedly occupation of such land amongst others. He further submits that the perusal of Section 15 would show that no person shall acquire any right over any land merely on the basis of his possession or otherwise over land disposed of or allotted under Sections 12, 13 or 14 of the Regulation, beyond that which is given by the Rules made under the said Section. In the instant case, the Respondent No.3 was admittedly the settlement holder of only 128 Bighas. Drawing the attention to Section 15 of the Regulation, Mr. In the instant case, the Respondent No.3 was admittedly the settlement holder of only 128 Bighas. Drawing the attention to Section 15 of the Regulation, Mr. Zho submits that on the basis of the purported possession of the 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas , the Respondent No.3 could not have claimed any right over the said land and the Deputy Commissioner could not have vide the order dated 01.10.2005 granted the said allotment/settlement in favour of the Respondent No.3. He further drew the attention of this Court to Rule 15 of the Settlement Rules framed under the Regulations wherein it stipulated that no person shall have any right to settlement merely because he in his occupation of land not included in any lease, granted by the State Government either to himself or to any other person. He further drew the attention to Rule 16 to submit that the lease can be issued only on a written application and no person shall enter into possession of waste land in any area until a lease has been issued to him or otherwise a written permission by the Deputy Commissioner having been granted to him pending issue of such lease to enter into the possession. Referring to Rule 1(2)(b) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Regulation, he submits that the “waste land” has been defined as lands at the disposal of the Government, which the Government has not disposed of by any lease, grant or otherwise and which is not included in a forest reserve or a forest proposed to be reserved or in a protected forest and has not been allotted as raising ground under the Rules framed under Section 13 of the Regulation. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the land in question more particularly, the land measuring 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas was a waste land within the meaning of Rule 1(2) (b) and consequently the Respondent No.3 could not have entered into possession of the said land without a lease or a written permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner. iii) He further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to observe that the dispute in question was between the 2 (two) parties and as such the appropriate Court to decide on the question of title and possession would have been the competent Civil Court. iii) He further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to observe that the dispute in question was between the 2 (two) parties and as such the appropriate Court to decide on the question of title and possession would have been the competent Civil Court. However the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration while upholding the actions of the Deputy Commissioner, who exercised the powers of a Civil Court for which the impugned judgment and order is set aside and quashed. iv) He further submitted that the learned Single Judge have committed a mistake of fact in holding that the Land Revenue Certificate produced by the petitioner up to 2005 were of the same date i.e.08.03.2005 and therefore the same do not authenticate the claim of settlement but did not take into consideration that the Land Revenue for the year 1988 in respect to Annual Patta No.19 was paid on 11.03.1988, Land Revenue for the year 1992 was paid on 08.01.1992, Land Revenue for the year 1993 was paid on 26.03.1993, Land Revenue for the year 2003 was paid on 03.04.2003, Land Revenue for the year 2002-03 was paid on 03.04.2003 and Land Revenue for the Annual Patta No.19 for the year 2004 was paid on 12.08.2004. C. On behalf of the Private Respondent, Mr. Imkong Jamir submitted as follows: i) The writ petitioners had no authority or locus standi to challenge the order dated 01.10.2005 inasmuch as the said land had nothing to do with the petitioners’ land or the disputed land and as the petitioners were not “person aggrieved”, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.31(K)/2006. ii) He further submits that a perusal of Paragraph 18 to 22 of the impugned judgment and order would clearly go to show that the learned Single Judge had meticulously taken into account the materials on record and after appreciating the same have passed the order whereby holding that the order dated 06.12.2005 was rightly passed. The learned Single Judge has also in the said Paragraphs duly dealt with the case of the petitioners and after the petitioners failed to produce any document(s) substantiating their claim for settlement /allotment in their favour of 40 Bighas of land covered by Dag No.36 of Patta No.19, the learned single Judge had rightly rejected the case of the petitioners. The learned Single Judge has also in the said Paragraphs duly dealt with the case of the petitioners and after the petitioners failed to produce any document(s) substantiating their claim for settlement /allotment in their favour of 40 Bighas of land covered by Dag No.36 of Patta No.19, the learned single Judge had rightly rejected the case of the petitioners. iii) He further submits that the learned Single Judge had rightly struck down the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums as it is a well settled principle of law that by way of executive instructions, the powers conferred upon an authority under the provisions of the Act (the Regulation herein) as well as the Rules framed therein under cannot be circumscribed. iv) Alternatively he also submitted, even it is held that the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums were intra vires then also the order dated 01.10.2005 was justified as a perusal of the order dated 01.10.2005 would show that a rectification was made to Patta No.14 and it was not a case of fresh allotment/settlement. He further submitted that the respondent authorities themselves have admitted in their Affidavit-in-Opposition filed in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 that the order was not a fresh allotment but a rectification of the patta. ISSUES THAT ARISE FOR ADJUDICATION 21. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and given our anxious consideration to the matter. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and taking into consideration the submission so made by the learned counsels for the parties, 2 (two) issues arises for consideration before this Court. i) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in upholding the order dated 06.12.2005 whereby the petitioners’ application was rejected and the Respondent No.3 was permitted to continue in occupation over the disputed land and exercise the rights over the disputed land ? ii) Whether the learned Single was justified in holding that the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums were ultra vires the Regulation and the Rules therein framed under? ANALYSIS AND REASONS 22. Let this Court first take into consideration the first issue.The facts as above mentioned shows that on 13.01.1950, the then Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills granted the settlement of 40 Bighas of land between Diphu River and I.B.Road at 7th Mile from Dimapur, in favour of Late Vipon Angami, Eyore Naga and 8 Others of Viswema Village. ANALYSIS AND REASONS 22. Let this Court first take into consideration the first issue.The facts as above mentioned shows that on 13.01.1950, the then Deputy Commissioner, Naga Hills granted the settlement of 40 Bighas of land between Diphu River and I.B.Road at 7th Mile from Dimapur, in favour of Late Vipon Angami, Eyore Naga and 8 Others of Viswema Village. It was also mentioned in the said order that the question of giving them more land would be considered later. Thereupon on 23.01.1967, Late. Vipon Angami filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima District for issuance of a fresh patta land to the extent shown by him on 15.01.1967. The Deputy Commissioner, Kohima District, passed an order on the said application which reads as follows: “As discussed, the original order should be studied whatever land occupied by Shri Vipon should be measured and allotted as originally ordered by the D.C.” Sd. Deputy Commissioner 23.01.1968 23. Thereafter, the land was demarcated by the S.D.C. (Dimapur) on 12.02.1968 and an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 02.07.1968 whereby the settlement of land measuring 128 Bighas instead of 40 Bighas was given to Late Vipon Angami between 6th and 7th Mile on D.I. Road on annual lease basis. The records further shows that in respect to the said land, a Patta was issued, being Patta No.14 which consisted of 2 (two) dags, being Dag No.2 and Dag No.6. Dag No.2 contained 27 Bighas 2 Kathas 0 Lechas whereas Dag No.6 contained 101 Bighas 3 Kathas 0 Lechas and in the Jamabandi the names of Late Vipon Angami, Eyore Angami and 8 Others were mentioned. Subsequent thereto, land measuring 13 Bighas 1 Katha 16 Lechas from Dag No.2 was mutated in the name of Kohima District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Dimapur, vide an order dated 13.07.1994 and the remaining land of 10 Bighas 0 Kathas 4 Lechas of Dag No.2 and land measuring 101 Bighas 3 Kathas 0 Lechas of Dag No.6 which continued to remain in the name of Late Vipon Angami and others were mutated in the name of the Respondent No.3 and Sri. Wahedi Angami on the basis of an order dated 13.06.1995. 24. Wahedi Angami on the basis of an order dated 13.06.1995. 24. The Petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2005 though claimed that 40 Bighas of land was allotted to the Petitioner No 1 on 12.08.1971 thereby creating a new Dag No.36 covered by Patta No.19 and the same was duly recorded in the Jamabandi and the Chitha Register but the petitioners failed to produce any settlement/allotment order dated 12.08.1971. It may be pertinent to mention that the said Dag No.36 covered by Patta No.19 as per the Trace Map produced by the Petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006, stood in between Dag No.6 of Patta No.14 and Dag No.8. 25. The further facts as disclosed would show that certain disputes arose regarding encroachment, between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.3 for which various complaints were lodged before the Revenue Authorities. During this period, the Respondent No.3 filed an application whereby it was stated that though in the year 1968, at the time of demarcation and issuance of Patta, 128 Bighas was found as the land possessed by Late Vipon Angami and Others but actually the said land in occupation stretched up to Dag No.8, and as such requested for a survey. In the Survey Report, so submitted on 09.09.2005, it transpired that although in the Revenue Chitha records, a land measuring 101 Bighas 3 Kathas 0 Lecha was recorded in the name of Respondent No.3 in Dag No.6 of Patta No.14 but on the ground position, the Respondent No.3 was found in the occupation of 201 Bighas 3 Katha 0 Lecha i.e. excess land measuring 100 Bighas 0 Kathas 0 Lecha was found in occupation of the Respondent No.3, which was unregularized. The said Survey Report further mentioned that out of the unregularized land, an area measuring 40 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha was regularized in the name of Petitioner No.1 bearing Dag No.36 of Patta No.19 without knowledge of the original land owners who had been settled on the land. It was further mentioned that leaving N.H. 39 Road Reservation i.e. a land measuring 11 Bighas 0 Katha 11 Lechas, a land measuring 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas may be regularized in favour of the Respondent No.3. The details which could be culled out from a perusal of Survey Report dated 09.09.2005 being pertinent to adjudication of the instant appeals are given herein below. The details which could be culled out from a perusal of Survey Report dated 09.09.2005 being pertinent to adjudication of the instant appeals are given herein below. Total land found in occupation of the Respondent No.3 : 201 B 03K 0L As per Existing records at the time of Survey, the Respondent No.3 had settlement in Dag No.6 of Patta No.14 : 101 B 03K 0L Total land found in possession of the Respondent No.3 which was in excess of the Settlement and stated to be unregularized. : 100 B 0K 0L From the said 100 B 0K 0L of land in Dag No.6 of Patta No.14, a plot of land was curved out into a new Patta and Dag i.e. Patta No.19 consisting of Dag No.36 which was in the name of the Petitioner No.1 : 40 B 0 K 0 L Land kept for roadside reservation for NH39 : 11 B 0 K 11 L Remaining unregularized land : 48 B 3 K 9 L 26. On the basis of the said Survey Report, 2 (two) applications were filed by the Respondent No.3. The first application was for regularizing the land measuring 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas and the second application was for cancelling the Jamabandi of the Petitioner No.1 and deleting his name from the Chitha Book and regularize the 40 Bighas of land in the name of the Respondent No.3. It would therefore be seen that the Respondent No.3 sought regularization of 40 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha regularized in the name of Petitioner No.1 in Dag No.36 of Patta No.19 by deleting the name of the Petitioner No.1 and also sought regularization of land measuring 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas in his favour. It further appears from the records that in respect to the first application which related to regularizing the 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 01.10.2005 whereby the plot of land under part of Dag No.6 measuring 48 Bighas 3 Kathas 9 Lechas at 7th Mile was included in Patta No.14 by rectifying the said Patta in the name of Respondent No.3. 27. The record further shows that on 07.11.2005, the Petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for protection of their land, demarcation by identifying Dag No.36 of Patta No.19 and also for reviewing the order dated 01.10.2005. 27. The record further shows that on 07.11.2005, the Petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for protection of their land, demarcation by identifying Dag No.36 of Patta No.19 and also for reviewing the order dated 01.10.2005. Notices were issued thereby directing both the parties to appear on 24.11.2005. 28. The Deputy Commissioner after taking into consideration that the Petitioners could not produce any settlement order/allotment order in their favour, came to a finding that it was unlikely that a new Dag was created in order to accommodate any allotment as for creation of a new Dag or Patta, the reference of the original Dag number is always made in the land record entries which have not been done in the case for which the records submitted by the Petitioners were held as unreliable and without any doubt to be fabricated. Consequently, the request for rights over the Dag No.6 and Dag No 36 by the petitioners and the demarcation thereof was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner further on the ground of long standing and continued occupation over the disputed land allowed the Respondent No.3 to enjoy his rights over the disputed land and directed that the rectification be made in the land records and the name of the Petitioner No.1 be deleted from Dag No.6 and Dag No.36. It would therefore be seen that vide the order dated 06.12.2005 the rights over the 40 Bighas of land was allowed to be enjoyed by the Respondent No.3. In other words the Deputy Commissioner, knowing fully well that there was a bar to allotment/settlement did not allot or settle but permitted the Respondent No.3 to enjoy his rights over the said 40 Bighas of land on the basis of his long possession. 29. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment and order more particularly in Paragraph 18 to 22 dealt with the said issue and came to a finding that the order dated 06.12.2005 in so far as the petitioners were concerned cannot be denounced as illegal, absurd or indifference of logic as the Petitioners failed to show any settlement order/allotment order. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment and order more particularly in Paragraph 18 to 22 dealt with the said issue and came to a finding that the order dated 06.12.2005 in so far as the petitioners were concerned cannot be denounced as illegal, absurd or indifference of logic as the Petitioners failed to show any settlement order/allotment order. The learned Single Judge further held that in the entries in the Jamabandi upon which the Petitioners relied upon was patently not supported by any order of settlement of the competent authority and being apparently belied by the Petitioner No.1’s age, at that time, the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur had passed the order within his jurisdiction. However, its needs to be noted that the learned Single Judge did not go into the question as regards the legality of the directions in the order dated 06.12.2005 whereby the Deputy Commissioner permitted the Respondent No.3 to enjoy his rights over the 40 Bighas of land which was the disputed land. 30. On the basis of the materials before us we are in the agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge in so far as negating the contentions of the petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 and holding that the entry in the Jamabandi in favour of Petitioner No.1 could not have been relied upon sans an order of settlement of the competent authority and being apparently belied by the Petitioner No.1’s age at that time thereof. The upholding of the findings have to be understood only as regards an adjudication from the point of view of the Revenue Courts. 31. However, as regards the directions passed in the order dated 06.12.2005, the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of long standing and continued occupation over the disputed land allowed the Respondent No.3 to enjoy his rights over the disputed land; this Court is of the opinion that the said directions would merely be a permission being granted by the Deputy Commissioner to remain in occupation of the land pending allotment/settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.3. In that view of the matter the Respondent No.3 would have no rights as a proprietor, land holder, settlement holder over the land measuring 40 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha which was covered by Dag No.36 of Patta No.19. In that view of the matter the Respondent No.3 would have no rights as a proprietor, land holder, settlement holder over the land measuring 40 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha which was covered by Dag No.36 of Patta No.19. The rights of the Respondent No.3 over the said land to continue in possession is subject to revocation of such permission either by the Deputy Commissioner or by the State Government as per the Regulations and the Rules framed therein under. 32. Now coming to the next question as to whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside and quashing the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums, it would be relevant to take note of the Office Memorandum dated 26.07.2005 which was prevailing at the relevant point of time when the impugned orders dated 01.10.2005 and 06.12.2005 were passed. The said Office Memorandum for the sake convenience is reproduced herein below: GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT No.LR/4-3/KOH/2003 Dt. Kohima, the 26th July, 2005 MEMORANDUM In view of the scarcity of land, Government was exercising restriction for allotment of land to private/individuals and issued numerous instructions from time to time. On 26th October 1992 allotment of land to private/individuals has been banned by the Government. Again in July, 1998 Government had directed District Administration not to allot any land to private without obtaining explicit approval from the Government. Now, therefore in the principal of the delegation of Power and Authority, all powers relating to regulation and management of land under Government has been vested with the State Government only. The existing ban shall continue till further order. Henceforth, no Government land shall be allotted to any body without the specific prior approval of the Government through out the State. All the existing powers vested with the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Officer Extra Asstt. Commissioner for temporary Settlement or Temporary permit has been ceased to operate with immediate effect. Henceforth, no Government land shall be allotted to any body without the specific prior approval of the Government through out the State. All the existing powers vested with the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Officer Extra Asstt. Commissioner for temporary Settlement or Temporary permit has been ceased to operate with immediate effect. Any Officer who is found acting contrary to the above instruction is liable to punishment under the following manner:- “If any Government official is suspected to be violating the Government instruction in regard to allotment of land, a Departmental enquiry shall be instituted against him/her by the concerned Disciplinary Authority and if found guilty appropriate penalty as prescribed under the Nagaland Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1967 shall be imposed on the officer.” This has been concurred by Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, O & M Cell Vide their U. O No.222 dated 08.11.2004. Therefore, it is impressed upon that the above instructions shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned henceforth. Sd/- 26-07-05 (M. YANTHAN) IAS Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland. 33. A reading of the said Office Memorandum would show that in view of the scarcity of land, the Government was exercising restrictions for allotment of land to private/individuals and from time to time had issued numerous instructions. On 26.10.1992, allotment of land to private/individuals were banned by the Government. Again in July, 1998, the Government had directed the District Administration not to allot any land to private/individuals without obtaining explicit approval from the Government. Therefore, vide the said Office Memorandum all powers relating to regulation and management of land under the Government has been vested with the State Government only and the said ban was to continue until further orders. In terms with the said Memorandum, it was directed that no Government land shall be allotted to anybody without a specific prior approval of the Government throughout the State. All the existing powers vested with the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Officer Extra Assistant Commissioner for temporary Settlement or Temporary permit had ceased to operate with immediate effect. Therefore, the effect of the said Office Memorandum appears to be that the Government had adopted a policy on account of scarcity of land on allotment of Government land without the specific prior approval of the Government throughout the State. 34. This is a policy decision of the Government. Therefore, the effect of the said Office Memorandum appears to be that the Government had adopted a policy on account of scarcity of land on allotment of Government land without the specific prior approval of the Government throughout the State. 34. This is a policy decision of the Government. The reasons are clear and apparent being that there was an acute scarcity of Government land. Though, there was not a complete ban in the allotment of land but the same was subject to specific approval of the Government. It also appears from a perusal of the other Notifications and Office Memorandums that the said policy decision has been operational for a long time since 1992. 35. Now, the question which arises as to whether the Government had the authority and power to put the said embargo on the exercise of powers of its Officers. The learned Advocate General had made submissions to the effect that a perusal of the Regulation as well as the Rules framed therein under would show that the Government has the ultimate control not only on the question of allotment/settlement of lands but also upon the powers to be exercised by its Officers. The learned Advocate General further submits that the regulations cannot be read in isolation but has to be read keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved. 36. We have perused the various provisions of the Regulation. Chapter-III relates to Settlement and Resumption. The settlement operation in terms with Section 18 of the Regulation starts with the State Government issuing a notification for settlement and also ends with the issuance of a notification by the State Government. The State Government has the power to amend or alter any notification relating to the Settlement proceedings. Rule 50 of the Settlement Rules stipulates that the State Government after declaring that a local area or class of estate is under settlement shall appoint under Section 133 of the Regulation, a Settlement Officer and one or more Assistant Settlement Officers and also under Section 134 of the Regulation, a Survey Officer and one more Assistant Survey Officers for the purpose of carrying out the operations. Rule 55 stipulates the various stages of assessment starting from Preliminary Record Writing and Field Classification; Record Attestation; Submission of assessment report, Revenue Attestation and Offer of settlement. 37. Rule 55 stipulates the various stages of assessment starting from Preliminary Record Writing and Field Classification; Record Attestation; Submission of assessment report, Revenue Attestation and Offer of settlement. 37. Chapter-III stipulates the various provisions i.e. Sections 20, 27 and 29 thereby empowering the State Government to make Rules. It is on the basis of the Rules framed under Section 29, the principles on which the land revenue is to be assessed and the conditions upon which the settlements are to be made and the manner in which the Settlement Officer is to report for sanction the rates and the method of assessment have been prescribed. Section 32 stipulates that the Settlement Officer shall offer the Settlement to such persons (if any) as he finds to be in possession of the estate and to have a permanent, heritable and transferrable right of use and occupancy in the same or to be in possession as mortgagees of persons having such right. The said Settlement Officer, if he finds no person in possession, shall in his discretion subject to such Rules as the State Government may make under Section 12 of the Regulation, offer the settlement to any person he thinks fit. Therefore, it would be seen that the power to offer settlement is dependent upon the Rules so framed by the State Government under Section 12 of the Regulation. Section 33 stipulates as regards the Acceptance or Refusal of Settlement. Relevant to note that Sub-Section (3) of Section 33 stipulates that if a person to whom a settlement has been offered does not, within the prescribed time, deliver an acceptance or inform the Settlement Officer in the prescribed manner that he refuses the proposed settlement, he shall, if the Settlement Officer by an order in writing so direct, be deemed to have accepted the settlement. However, this Acceptance of Settlement even, upon the Settlement Officer passing an order would not be final, as against the Government inasmuch as by virtue of Proviso 1(b) of Section 34, the settlement shall not be final as against the Government until it has been sanctioned by the State Government. However, this Acceptance of Settlement even, upon the Settlement Officer passing an order would not be final, as against the Government inasmuch as by virtue of Proviso 1(b) of Section 34, the settlement shall not be final as against the Government until it has been sanctioned by the State Government. In other words a settlement so offered by the Settlement Officer by virtue of Sub-Section (3) of Section 33 would be deemed to have been accepted vis-à-vis the person to whom the settlement had been offered, but the said settlement shall not be final as against the Government until it has been sanctioned by the State Government. Therefore, the Proviso 1(b) of Section 34 clearly stipulates that the settlement shall not be final as against the Government until it has been sanctioned by the State Government and the object behind the said Proviso is apparent as the land belongs to the State Government. This aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in arriving at the finding as to whether the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums were ultra vires the Regulation and the Rules framed therein under. We are of the opinion that the impugned Notifications/Memorandums are in consonance with the objects sought to be achieved vide the Regulation and accordingly cannot said to be ultra vires the Regulations or the Rules framed therein under. 38. The other aspect of the matter can also be seen from another angle. A perusal of the Office Memorandum as reproduced hereinabove would show that the Government have issued impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums in order to put a check on the exercise of power by its Officers. The question arises as to whether the Government is empowered to do so? The answer to the same can be found in Chapter-VII of the Regulation and more particularly to Section 122 which stipulates that the State Government shall be the Chief Controlling Authority. Furthermore Section 123 stipulates that every Commissioner of a Division, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Extra Assistant Commissioner shall be a Revenue Officer for the purpose of Regulation and Section 124 stipulates that the State Government for the purpose of the Regulation appoint to each District, in addition to the officers mentioned in Section 123 as many other Revenue Officers as it thinks fit and also have the power to remove or suspend any Officer appointed under Section 124. A further perusal of Sections 125, 126, 127 and 128 shows that it is the State Government who has the overall authority. 39. Part-B of Chapter-VII of the Regulation stipulates the authority of the State Government to appoint and powers that the Settlement Officers and the Survey Officers can exercise. It would be seen from a perusal of Section 133 , 134, 135, 136, 137 and 138 that it is the State Government who would appoint the Settlement Officers and the power so vested upon the said Officers are subject to the control of the State Government. Part-C of Chapter- VII of the Regulation deals with “Mode of Conferring and Withdrawing Powers”. The said part has only 1 (one) Section i.e. Section 139. As the said Section has relevance for the purpose of the instant dispute, the same is quoted herein below. “139. Conferring and withdrawing of powers.—(1) In conferring powers under this Regulation the State Government may empower persons by name or classes of officials generally by their official titles and may vary or cancel any order conferring such powers. (2) The State Government may withdraw from any officer the powers conferred on him by this Regulation.” 40. A perusal of said Section would show that the State Government may empower persons by name or classes of officials generally or by official titles and may vary or cancel any order conferring such powers. Sub-Section (2) stipulates that the State Government may withdraw from any officer the powers conferred on him by the Regulation. In the backdrop of the same, if we take into consideration the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums, it would be seen that the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 139(2) have issued the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums. This aspect of the matter relating to Section 139(2) of the Regulation was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while holding that the said impugned Notifications/Officer Memorandums were ultra vires the Regulations and the Rules framed therein under. 41. Further to that, a reading of Rule 1(1) of the Settlement Rules stipulates that all Powers of Deputy Commissioner under the Rules shall be exercised subject to any general or special orders issued from time to time by the State Government. The said Rule being relevant is quoted herein below. 41. Further to that, a reading of Rule 1(1) of the Settlement Rules stipulates that all Powers of Deputy Commissioner under the Rules shall be exercised subject to any general or special orders issued from time to time by the State Government. The said Rule being relevant is quoted herein below. “Rule 1 (1) All powers of the Deputy Commissioner under these rules shall be exercised subject to any general or special orders issued from time to time by the State Government.” 42. The power of the Deputy Commissioner for granting allotment of land in terms with the Rules therefore in our opinion is subject to general or special orders issued by the State Government. These impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums would come within the ambit of general or special orders issued by the State Government and this aspect of the matter was also not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in holding that the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums were ultra vires the Regulations and Rules framed therein under for which we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 is liable to be interfered with in the manner as indicated herein below. CONCLUSIONS 43. Consequently, we dispose of the appeals with the following observations and order accordingly. i) The judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 allowing WP(C) No.60(K)/2006 is interfered with thereby holding that the impugned Notifications/Office Memorandums are intra vires the Regulations and Rules framed therein under. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 to that extent is set aside and quashed. ii) The order dated 01.10.2015 impugned in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 being violative of the Office Memorandum dated 26.07.2005 is set aside and quashed. iii) The findings so arrived at by the learned single Judge in so far as the adjudication made in respect to the order dated 06.12.2005 as regards the rights of the petitioners in WP(C) No.31(K)/2006 in respect to Dag No.36, covered by Patta No.19 are upheld. The upholding of the said findings have to be understood only as regards an adjudication from the point of view of the Revenue Courts. The upholding of the said findings have to be understood only as regards an adjudication from the point of view of the Revenue Courts. iv) The directions passed in the order dated 06.12.2005 by the Deputy Commissioner thereby allowing the Respondent No.3 to enjoy his rights over the disputed land on the basis of long standing and continued occupation over the disputed land, would merely be a permission being granted by the Deputy Commissioner to remain in occupation of the land pending allotment/settlement made in favour of the Respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, the Respondent No.3 would have no rights as a proprietor, land holder, settlement holder over the land measuring 40 Bighas 0 Katha 0 Lecha which was covered by Dag No.36 of Patta No.19. The rights of the Respondent No.3 over the said land to continue in possession would be subject to revocation of such permission by the Deputy Commissioner or by the State Government in accordance with law. v) Taking into consideration that the issues involved herein pertains adjudication of rights by the revenue authorities, the same shall not preclude the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 31 (K)/2006 to institute a suit before the competent civil court for establishing their rights, title and interest over the land covered by Dag No 36 of Patta No 19; if permissible under law. 44. With the above observations and directions the instant appeals stands disposed of. No costs.