WP(C) 1273/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLETHE MR. JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI Heard Mr. I.H.Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.B.L.Singh, lea rned State Counsel appearing for the State respondents. On perusal of the writ petition and as pointed out by the learned State Counsel, it becomes clear that the petitioners in this writ petition claim simil ar treatment with one Ajin Ali for allotment of a adjacent land measuring 12 lec has. On 4.3.2011, this Court had asked the petitioners to apprise this Court as to how the allotment/settlement of the land in question situated within a tri bal belt could be made though they are non-tribals. No satisfactory instruction is obtained by the learned counsel for the petitioners even today. I am of the o pinion that the unauthorized allotment given to a third party, who himself is a non-tribal, cannot be used by the petitioners as a precedent claiming similar tr eatment. In other words, the Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be i nvoked by the petitioners to claim similar treatment with a third party who was illegally allotted the land. In the circumstances, this writ petition is totally devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed but without any costs. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to approach the State Respo ndents to allot the land in question notwithstanding dismissal of this writ peti tion, as the petitioners have been allegedly occupying the land in question sinc e 1984.