Administrative allotment schemes remain amendable unless statutory rules expressly incorporate the scheme as binding legal norms.

Nazul land allotment rules were interpreted as regulating eligible categories and pre-determined rates, not as incorporating the entire 1961 allotment scheme or its eligibility conditions as binding statutory norms. On that footing, the later office order operated only on the administrative scheme and did not amount to an amendment of the statutory rules. The administrative order dated 03.04.1986 was therefore valid, and the respondents could not claim relief on the basis that the 1961 Scheme had become immutable under the Nazul Land Rules. The appeals succeeded and the High Court's order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the 1961 land allotment scheme could be amended by an administrative order notwithstanding the Nazul Land Rules.

Analysis: Rule 4 of the Nazul Land Rules was held to regulate the categories of persons to whom Nazul land could be allotted in conformity with the plans, while Rule 6 was held only to prescribe the pre-determined rates applicable where allotment was otherwise permissible. The rules did not incorporate the entire 1961 Scheme or the conditions governing eligibility under that scheme. The later office order therefore operated on the administrative scheme itself and did not amount to an amendment of statutory rules.

Conclusion: The administrative order dated 03.04.1986 was valid, and the rejection of the respondents' applications could not be set aside on the ground that the scheme required statutory amendment.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the respondents were not entitled to relief on the basis that the 1961 Scheme had become immutable under the Nazul Land Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative allotment scheme remains amendable by administrative action unless the statutory rules have themselves incorporated the scheme or the eligibility conditions as binding legal norms.

---