K.H. Nobin Singh, J. - Heard Shri A. Bimol, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the Government letter dated 18-08-2012 conveying approval to the fixation of abnormally high premium amount in respect of the allotment of land at Village No. 91-A, Lamphelpat in favour of 18 persons including the petitioners and also for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix a reasonable premium amount in respect thereof.

3.1. According to the petitioners, they along with eight others are all landless agricultural workers residing contiguous to the Lamphelpat area under Village No. 91(A) of Imphal West District, Manipur who formed a registered society called "The Lamphel Collective Farming Co-operative Society Ltd." and after they having reclaimed and improved about 6 acres of the marshy area of Lamphelpat, they paid Rs. 2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) to the Revenue Department, Govt. of Manipur as revenue for their enjoying crops grown by them in the said area. They made an application to the concerned authority of the State Government for grant of settlement of certain arable portion of the land improved by the members of the said society which was duly recommended by the Director of Settlement & Land Records, Manipur vide its letter dated 08-04-1993 to the Under Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur for allotment of the said land. After having considered their application, the State Government approved the allotment of the said land measuring only 5.62 acres in favour of the petitioners and eight others for residential and agricultural purposes under Section 14(1) of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as " the") and its relevant rules made thereunder, called the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), on payment of premium by the allottees vide its letter dated 22-12-1993 addressed to the Director of Settlement & Land Records, Manipur.

3.2. When no action thereafter was taken by the concerned Department for issuing a settlement or allotment order in favour of the petitioners and others, a writ petition being C.R. No. 469 of 1997 came to be filed by the society which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 07-08-1998 passed by the Honble High Court directing the State Government and the Director of Settlement & Land Records to issue allotment orders. Since certain mistakes and omissions having crept in the judgment and order, the Honble High Court amended it vide its order dated 09-12-1998 on an application being M.C. No. 560 of 1998 (Ref:- C.R. No. 469 of 1997). Against the said judgment and order dated 07-08-1998, a Review Petition came to be filed by a Society called "The Lamphelpat Collective Farming Co-Operative Society Limited" which was dismissed by the Honble High Court vide its order dated 03-12-1998 passed in Civil Review Case No. 30 of 1998. After the Review Petition having been dismissed, the review petitioner preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No. 172 of 1998 which was also dismissed by the High Court without interfering with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

3.3. During the pendency of the said writ appeal, the Police Department, Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 23-06-1999 informed the Director of Settlement & Land Records that the said land measuring an area of 5.72 acres which was allotted to 18 persons including the petitioners, has been included in the land allotted to it and that the area of land equivalent thereto might be allotted to the members of the society from some other area.

3.4. When the respondents failed to issue formal allotment orders in favour of the said 18 persons, including the petitioners, a contempt petition being C.C. (C) No. 111 of 2007 came to be filed and in compliance with the directions given by the Honble High Court in the said contempt case, the respondent No. 2 issued a formal allotment order dated 30-12-2010 allotting pieces of land as specified in the said allotment order for residential/agricultural purposes in favour of 18 persons including the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners and other moved an application requesting the State Government for fixation of the amount of premium of the said land allotted to them at the prevailing rate of 1993 on the ground that although the allotment order was issued in the year 2010, an approval thereof had already been conveyed in the year 1993. In response to the said application, the respondent No. 2 requested the Commissioner (Revenue), Government of Manipur to take a decision in that regard.

3.5. When the State Government failed to fix the amount of premium for the land allotted to them, a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 79 of 2012 was filed on behalf of the petitioners praying for necessary direction to the respondents for fixing the amount of premium which was disposed of by the Honble High Court on 08-05-2012 directing the respondent No. 1 to take a decision as regards the fixation of the amount of premium within a month therefrom. To their shock and surprise, the State Government conveyed its approval vide letter dated 18-08-2012 to the fixation of the premium amount @ Rs. 25,53,610/- (Rupees twenty five lakh fifty three thousand six hundred and ten) only per acre. Since the amount of premium fixed by the State Government was too high and beyond the affordable means of the petitioners, an application was submitted to the respondent No. 3 requesting for exemption from payment of the premium amount. Having the request fallen on deaf ears of the State Government, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition contending inter-alia that the fixation of the said premium amount is arbitrary and discriminatory; that while fixing the amount of premium, the State Government had failed to consider various orders issued by it in respect of agricultural land and that the fixation of the amount of premium was done whimsically, arbitrary and in colourable exercise of power without any valid reason resulting in the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. The allotment of the said land in favour of the petitioners is not in dispute and as regards the fixation of the amount of premium, the stand of the State Government as reflected in their affidavit-in-opposition is that the value of land is fixed with reference to the prevailing market value of land as per Rules 14 of the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. Since the land was allotted in the year 2010, the market value of the land prevailing in that year is taken into account and not the value of the land prevailing in the year 1993. It is also stated that the amount of premium is fixed after assessing the then prevailing market value of land based on the average sale data for the last five years and therefore, the same is reasonable and not exorbitant. The orders cited and relied upon by the petitioners relate to the year 2002 and what is being contested as too high is for the year 2012 with a gap of more than a decade. As regards the allotment of lands to the Assam Rifles and RIMS, the decision was taken by the State Government for allotment on payment of token premium in public interest. The allotted land/area falls within the Ward No. 5 of the Imphal Municipality and it being within the town area, cannot be compared with the land falling in the interior areas of Imphal West District.

5. Before going into the merit of the case, this court proposes to deal with the preliminary issue raised by the learned Government Advocate as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have not exhausted the remedy available under the provisions of Section 93 of the. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 [LQ/SC/1997/514] ; Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan & Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 569 [LQ/SC/2001/1735] and AIR 2010 SC 2859 [LQ/SC/2010/715] . Refuting the allegation as aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the provisions of Section 93 of thewill not apply to the facts of the present case and therefore, the writ petition can be entertained by this court. The controversy centres round the provisions of Section 93 of thewhich is reproduced herein below:

"93.Appeals:

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under this Act, -

(a) if such an order is passed by an officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer, to the Sub-Division Officer;

(b) if such an order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, to the Deputy Commissioner;

(c) if such order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the [Tribunal]

(d) if such an order is passed by an assistant Survey and Settlement officer, to the Survey and Settlement Officer or to a revenue officer notified by the [State Government] in the Official Gazette to be the appellate authority; and

(e) if such an order is passed by a Survey and Settlement Officer, to the Director of Settlement and Land Record or to a revenue officer notified by the [State Government] in the Official Gazette to be the appellate authority."

Section 93 of theprovides for appeals that can be preferred by an aggrieved person to an officer against the order passed by an officer subordinate to it. Before an appeal is preferred, there has to be an order issued by an officer as mentioned therein. The existence of an order is a condition precedent for applying the provisions of Section 93 of the. In other words, to apply the provisions of Section 93 of the Act, the existence of an order against which an appeal can be preferred, is a must. On perusal of the provisions of Section 93 of the Act, the contention of the learned Government Advocate appears to be incorrect mainly for two reasons - one, there is no order issued by any of the officers as mentioned therein, in the present case, against which an appeal can be preferred and two, the State Government has issued only a letter conveying its approval to the determination of the market value of the land. It is nowhere mentioned in Section 93 of thethat an appeal can be preferred against the decision of the State Government and in other words, no forum is contemplated in the provisions of Section 93 of thefor preferring an appeal against the decision of the State Government. There can be no dispute about the law being laid down by the Honble Supreme Court as aforesaid but since Section 93 of theprovides no alternative remedy to an aggrieved person, like the petitioners in the present case, against the decision taken by the State Government, the question of applying the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the said cases to the present case, does not arise. Therefore, it can be safely held that the writ petition is maintainable.

6. From the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the main issue that arise for consideration by this court is as to whether the premium in respect of the land allotted to the petitioners, has been fixed in accordance with law and in other words, the method of fixation of premium called "average sale data" by which the premium has been fixed by the respondents, is the one as prescribed in the and the rules made thereunder. Shri A. Bimol, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as per the allotment order, there are two types of land - one, for residential and two, for agricultural purpose and the premium shall be paid by the allottee at the rate prescribed in Rule 11 of the Rules. Rule 11(1) provides the manner as to how the premium is to be fixed in respect of the land allotted for agricultural purpose whereas Rule 11(2) provides that any person allotted land for construction of a dwelling house shall pay premium equal to the market value of the land. It is the further submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in respect of the land allotted for agricultural purpose, the premium has to be fixed as prescribed in Rule11(1); that so far as the land allotted for construction of dwelling house is concerned, the respondents while determining the market value of the land, have followed the method called "average sale data" which is not prescribed in the and the rules made thereunder and that in the absence of any method being prescribed in the or the rules made thereunder for determining the market value of the land, the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions ought to have been followed by the respondents. Referring to various orders issued by the respondents as regards the fixation of premium in respect of the lands allotted to many other persons, it has been submitted by him that there has not been any uniformity in the fixation of premium by the respondents. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Umakanta, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the land allotted to the petitioners being a town land, the premium is to be paid in terms of Rule 14 which provides that an amount equal to the market value of the land shall be charged as premium for allotment of any town land and in view of the provisions of Rule 4(2), Rule 11 shall not apply to the allotment of any town land. The expression "town land" is defined at Rule 2(g) as any land within limits of a Municipality notified area or cantonment.

7. It is a question of fact whether the land allotted to the petitioner is a town land or not which is to be decided on the basis of documents and it appears that the State Government has not issued any order declaring that the land allotted to the petitioners is a town land, although a report dated 22-10-2016 submitted by the Sub-Deputy Collector is on record without any details in support thereof. The learned Government Advocate, relying upon the Notification dated 11-04-1972 has contended that the said land falls within the Ward No. 5 of the Imphal Municipality, to which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the said Notification was issued with a view to constitute the local areas of the Imphal Municipality for the purpose of election of Commissioners and not for anything else. On perusal of the said Notification, it is not clear to this court as to whether this Village No. 91(A) has been brought within the Imphal Municipality or it has been declared as part of the Imphal Municipality. Assuming for the sake of argument that the said Village No. 91 (A) is a part of the Imphal Municipality, the respondents ought to have applied uniformly the method of determining the market value of the various lands thereof allotted to many other persons which they appear to have failed to do so, as is evident from the documents filed by the petitioners. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is a question of fact which this court cannot go into it and it is for the State Government to examine it and issue an appropriate order in respect thereof. This question of fact is relevant only in respect of the land allotted for the purpose of agriculture. But so far as the land allotted for a dwelling house or the town land is concerned, the premium as equivalent to the market value is to be paid by the allottee. It appears that there is no provision in the or the Rules made thereunder as regards the method for determining the market value of the land. Moreover, during the course of hearing, when this court put a query to the learned Government Advocate as to whether the method called "average sale data" adopted by the respondents while determining the market value of the land, is prescribed in any provision of the or Rules, he did answer in the negative and in other words, he was unable to show any provision of law by which the said method can be adopted by the respondents. The State Government being an institution, has to act fairly and reasonably, failing which the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India will be attracted and its action will be rendered illegal. The State Government cannot take any action which is not backed by law. In this regard, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has some force and substance, when he contended that in the absence of any method prescribed in the law enacted by the State Legislature, the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court will have to be followed by the State Government. According to him, in the case of Ravinder Narain & anr. v. Union of India, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481 [LQ/SC/2003/292] wherein a question relating to the valuation of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act arose, the Honble Supreme Court held:

"9. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made:

(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1);

(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;

(iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and

(iv) it should possess similar advantages.

10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case (see Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty)."

Similarly, in Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Office, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 367 [LQ/SC/2009/824] which relates to the fixation of market value of land arising out of the land acquisition proceedings, the Honble Supreme Court held:

"10. One of the principles for determination of the market value of the acquired land would be the price an interested buyer would be willing to pay if it is sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the. But finding direct evidence in this behalf is not an easy exercise and therefore, the Court has to take recourse to other known methods for arriving at the market value of the land acquired.

11. One of the preferred and well-accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the comparable sales method. The comparable sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the. Undoubtedly, an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise.

12. In Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. this Court had observed as under: (SCC pp. 652-53, para 3)

"3. ... While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land."

13. Yet again in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat making reference to a number of cases on the point, it was observed as follows: (SCC pp. 796-97, paras 18-20)

"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.

19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.

20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:

Positive factors

Negative factors

(i) Small in size

(i) Largeness of area

(ii) Proximity to a road

(ii) Situation in the interior at a distance from the road

(iii) Frontage on a road

(iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth

(iv) Nearness to developed area

(iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up

(v) Regular shape

(v) Remoteness from developed locality

(vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition

(vi) Some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser.

(vii) Special value for an owner of ad adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage"

14. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) of theare the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a landowner. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it".

8. The above cases which are cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, have arisen out of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and although the present case has nothing to do with the Land Acquisition Act, the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court as regards the determination of the market value of the land, are relevant. So far as the method of determining the market value of the land is concerned, it will make no difference whether the land involved is in respect of a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act or in respect of a proceeding for allotment to the landless and what is relevant is the method of determining the market value of the land irrespective of the nature of the land. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that in respect of the land allotted to the petitioners and some other, the respondents ought to have followed the principals laid down by the Honble Supreme Court as aforesaid while determining the market value of the said land, when there is no specific provisions in the or the Rules made thereunder for that purpose.

9. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed and consequently, the letter dated 18-08-2012 of the Under Secretary (Revenue), Government of Manipur, impugned herein, is quashed and set aside with the following directions:

(a) The respondents shall examine; take a decision, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, whether the land allotted to the petitioners is a town land, as it falls within the Imphal Municipality after the petitioners being given an opportunity of being heard and issue a speaking order in respect thereof;

(b) In the event of the said land being found to be town land, the respondents shall fix the amount of premium, within a month thereafter, by following the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases or any other case as regards the determination of market value of the land;

(c) In the event of the said land not being found to be town land, the respondents shall fix the amount of premium, within the same time as directed at direction (b) above, in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules so far as the land allotted for agricultural purposes is concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.