In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Government of Manipur in Revenue Department declaring that the award dated 4.3.93 of the Collector, Ukhrul shall stand cancelled with immediate effect and with a further direction to all the respondents to pay compensation for the land acquired within a stipulated time. 2. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner, Shangshak Land Owners/Holders Association is an Association of persons who own and hold land covered by CS Dag No. 1 to 165 of Shangshak situated at Shangshak Village, Ukhrul District in the State of Maaipur measuring an area of 439.05 acres. The said land was acquired by the State Government of Manipur under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for such acquisition a preliminary notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 8.7.1991. In the said notification, it was also stated that the lands were urgently needed for location of Assam Rifles and it was directed under section 17 (4) of the Act that the provisions of section 5A of the Act would not apply. Soon thereafter by a notification 30.10.91, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to declare under section 6 of the Act that the land was needed for construction of location of residential building in respect of Assam Rifles and Deputy Commissioner, Ukhrul was directed under section 7 of the Act to take order for acquisition of the said laid. As a result of the aforesaid land acquisition proceedings, possession of the land in question has already been taken by the Government. After the aforesaid notifications, the Collector, Ukhrul issued notices under section 9 of the Act inviting written claims and objections from persons interested in the land, and interested persons filed claims on 3.12.1991 before the Collector, Ukhrul claiming compensation. Since the Collector did not make the award under section 11 of the Act for sometime the petitioner moved this Court ia Civil Rule No. 1350 of 1992 and by an order dated 27.11.92 the Civil Rule was disposed of with the direction that the Collector shall make the award regarding compensation of the land within the period of 3 months. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court an inquiry was conducted by the Collector and rate of compensation for the land acquired was determined by the Collector at a Rs.65,000/- per acre plus 30% solatium as against the demand of Rs. ,74,000/- per acre made by the land owners/holders and thereafter the said Collector wrote a letter dated 12.2.1993 to the Commissi­oner (Revenue) Govt. of Manipur, Imphal for approval of his proposed award of Rs.65,000/- per acre, a copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure A2. Since no approval was received from the Government in the Revenue Department to the said proposed award and the time limit of 3 months stipulated in the order dated 27.11.92 of this Court in CR No. 1850 of 1992 had expired on 27.2.93 the Collector had no option but to make the award under section 11 of the Act on 4.3.93 fixing compensation @ Rs.65,000/-per acre plus 30 solatium in respect of the land. A copy of the award dated 4.3.93 of the Collector, Land Acquisition; Ukhrul is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure A3. But by the order/notification dated 7.10.93 the Governor of Manipur was pleased to declare that the award stood cancelled with immediate effect. It is this order of cancellation of the award dated 4.3.93 of the Collector that is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 4. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents 1,2 and 3, namely, the State of Manipur, Secretary (Finance) and District Collector, Ukbrul, it has been stated inter alia, that the award dated 4.3.93 of the Collector was void inasmuch as prior approval of the State Government was not taken before the award was made as required under section 11 of the Act and that compensation awarded by the said award dated 4.3.93 was on the high side and that after the cancellation of the said award by the notification dated 7.10.93 of the Government a fresh award dated 28.10.93 has been made by the Collector after taking prior approval of the State Government in accordance with section 11 of the Act. A copy of the said award dated 28.10.93 has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure D3. 5. A copy of the said award dated 28.10.93 has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure D3. 5. In reply to the averments in the counter affidavit of the respondents 1, 2 and 3, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder stating, inter alia, that the second award dated 20.10.93 was made by the Collector without notices to the land owners/holders, and that the said award was ante dated and ab-initio void on account of violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Consis­tent with the aforesaid stand taken in the rejoinder, the petitioner has also filed an application praying for quashing the second award dated 20.10.93 of the Collector on the ground that no notices were served on the land owners/holders and interested persons before the said second award was made. The said application has been registered as Civil Misc Application No. 69 of 1994. 6. In the background of the aforesaid facts, Mr. RS Reisang, learned counsel for the petitioner makes 3 (three) submissions : (i) the declaration under section 6 of the Act was made by notifica­tion dated 30.10.9J in respect of the land in question whereas the second award was made after expiry of 2 years from the said notification dated 30.10.91 and the award was ante-dated to 28.10.93 only for the purpose of saving the land acquisition proceedings from section IIA of the Act which provides that the entire proceedings for acquisition land shall lapse if the award is not made within 2 years from the dale 01 publication of the declaration; (ii) the Government had not been conferred with any power under the Act to cancel an award made by the Collector and accordingly the order/notification dated 7.10.93 (Annexure A4) canceling the award dated 4.3.93 of the Collector (Annexure A3) is void and liable to be quashed and more so because the award had been made pursuant to direction of this Court in Civil Rule No. 1350 of 1992. (iii) the second award dated 20.10.93 of the Collector (Annexur D3) is void for non compliance with the mandatory requirements of notice to interested persons under section 9 of the Act and hence is liable to be quashed. 7. Mr. Modhuchandra Singh, Junior Government Advocate appearing in the absence of Mr. (iii) the second award dated 20.10.93 of the Collector (Annexur D3) is void for non compliance with the mandatory requirements of notice to interested persons under section 9 of the Act and hence is liable to be quashed. 7. Mr. Modhuchandra Singh, Junior Government Advocate appearing in the absence of Mr. L Shyamkishore Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, on other hand, submits : (i) the date mentioned in the second award could show that it was made on 28.10.93 within 2 years from the publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act on 30.10.91 and hence the land acquisition proceedings did not lapse under section 11A of the Act; (ii) the award dated 4.3.93 of the Collector (Annexure A3) was not an award valid in law inasmuch as it was made contrary to the mandatory provisions in section 11 of the Act that no award shall be made without the prior approval of the Govt.; (iii) Notices had, in fact, been served under section 9 of the Act to the interested persons and no further notices were required to be served on the persons interested or the occupants of the land. 8. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings has lapsed under section 11A of the Act, in my opin­ion, has no force. In the present case, admittedly section 17 (1) of the Act was invoked and possession of the land has been taken by the Collector. Section 17 (1) of the Act is quoted herein below : ''17. (1) In case of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9, sub-section (1) take possession of any land needed for public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances." The aforesaid language of section 17 (1) of the Act makes it clear that in case of urgency, though an award has not been made, the Collector can take possession of the land for public purpose and on such possession being taken, such land vests absolutely in Government free from all encumbrances. However, where there is no urgency, under section 16 of the Act the Collector can take possession of land only after an award is made and on such possession being taken, the land would vest in the Government. Thus, in cases of urgency under section 17, acquisition proceedings may be complete even before the award, and cannot lapse by virtue of section 11A if the award is not made within 2 years from the publication of the declaration. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1993 (III) Current Civil Cases 249. Accordingly, the first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fails. 9. The second contention of the petitioner that once an award is made under section 11 of the Act by the Collector, the Government has no power under the Act to cancel the said award, has some force, but the contention presupposes an award made in accordance with section 11 of the Act. A reading of the Act would show that no power has been vested in the Govern­ment to cancel an award once made by the Collector under section 11 of the Act, but such an award by the Collector has to be an award made in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Act. Section 11 (1) of the Act is quoted hereunder : "11. Section 11 (1) of the Act is quoted hereunder : "11. (1) On the day so fixed, or on any day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurement made under section 8, and into the value of the land (at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of: (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land, and (iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him : Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. Provided further that it shall be competent to for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf." 10. The first proviso to section 11 (1) quoted above is negatively worded and prohibits making of any award by the Collector under section 11 (1) of the Act without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf. Further, the use of the word 'shall' in the said proviso also indicates that it is the mandatory requirement of section 11 (1) of the Act that the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in that behalf has to be obtained by the Collector before making an award the said requirement can be dispensed with under the second proviso by the appropriate Government only. Accordingly, although the Government may not have the power under the Act to cancel an award made in accordance with section 11 (1) of the Act, in a proceeding before a Court for a direction to pay compensation in accordance with an award, it is open for the Government to. take the defence that the award is not an award under section 11 of the Act and no compensation can be directed to be paid in accordance with such an award. I am, therefore, of the opinion that although the Government has no power to cancel an award made by the Collector in accordance with section 11A of the Act, in the present case no direction can be issued to the Government to pay compensation in accordance with the award dated 4.3.93 as it has not been made in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 11 (1) of the Act and is not an award under section 11 of the Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said award dated 4.3.93 was made in compliance with the direction of this Court, in Civil Rule No. 1850 of 1992 does not improve matters because no direction was given in the order dated 27.11.92 in the said Civil Rule by this Court to the Collector to make an award without prior approval of the State Government as required by section 11 (1) of the Act. 11. That leaves us with the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second award dated 28.10.93 of the Collector (Annexure D3) is vitiated on account of non compliance with the provisions of section 9 and 11 of the Act. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice the averments in paragraph 5 of the rejoi­nder affidavit and paragraph 6 of the application for quashing the second award dated 28.10.93. Though the aforesaid averments of the petitioner have not been denied by affidavit on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a reading of the said award dated 28.10.93 (Annexure D3) would show that the said award was passed after due enquiry, and therefore, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. The learned counsel for the respondents, further, submits that notices under section 9 (1) and 9 (3) of the Act are contemplated only once and such notices were served before the first award dated 4.3.93 was made by the Collector. But, since the first award dated 4.3.93 of the Collector was not made with the prior approval of the State Government as required by section 11 of the Act, the said award had to be cancelled and a fresh award dated 28.10.93 has to be made by the Collector after due enquiry and after prior approval of the State Government. 12. In my opinion, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the respondents overlooks the fact that under section 9 of the Act notices are required to be given to persons interested in the land and to the occupants of the land not merely for the purpose of enabling them to make their claims for compensation but also to participate in the inquiry to be conducted by the Collector before making the award under section 11 of the Act. In the present case, though notices appear to have been given to all persons interested in the land and to the occupants of the land under section 9 of the Act and pursuant to the said notices claims and objections were made and the Collector enquired into the claims and objections of the said persons and occupants of the land and thereafter made the award dated 4.3.93 (Annexure A3), the said award of the Collector was not accepted by the Government on account of the fact that no prior approval had been granted by the Government before the award was made. But, thereafter, when a fresh inquiry was made by the Collector for the purpose of making the second award dated 28.10.93 (Annexure D3), the persons interested in the land and occupants of the land no longer could participate in the enquiry. In the circumstances, therefore, the enquiry conducted by the Collector after the first award dated 4.3.93 was without the participation of the persons interested in the land and occupants of land. In the circumstances, therefore, the enquiry conducted by the Collector after the first award dated 4.3.93 was without the participation of the persons interested in the land and occupants of land. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that after notices were issued under section 9 of the Act before the first award dated 4.3 93 was made, the law did not require any further notice to the per­sons interested in the land and occupants of the land under section 9 of the Act has also uo force because the provisions of section 9(2) and section 11(1) of the Act indicate that a date has to be fixed for the enquiry into the objecti­ons of the persons interested in the land and such fixation of date of enquiry and adjournment of the enquiry to some other date would show that the purport of the notices under section 9 of the Act is not merely to give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land and occupants of the land to make their claims or, to file their objections, but also to participate in the enquiry conducted by the Collector before making the award. 13. Accordingly, I am of the view that the second award dated 28.10.93 of the Collector (Annexure D3)has been made without giving due opportunity to the persons interested in the land and occupants of the land to participate in the enquiry relating to determination of the compensation, and as the requi­rements of law as provided in sections 9 and 11 of the Act have not been complied with, the award dated 28.10.93 of the Collector, Land Acquisition, Ukhrul (Annexure D3) is liable to be quashed. 14. In the result, the award dated 28.10.93 of the Collector, Land Acqui­sition, Ukhrul (Annexure D3) is quashed and the Collector is directed to issue notice to the persons interested and occupants of the land fixing the date of enquiry for determination of the compensation and make a fresh award in accordance with law after obtaining prior approval of the Government as required under section 11 of the Act. Since the matter has been delayed; I further direct that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the Collector and the award shall be made within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order and compensation shall be paid within 2 months from the date of the award. Since the matter has been delayed; I further direct that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the Collector and the award shall be made within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order and compensation shall be paid within 2 months from the date of the award. This direction is being issued keeping in mind the judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 1968 SC 1223 to the effect that where the land owners or the tenants were aggrieved by delay in assessing the compensation, it is always open for them to claim writ or orders compelling the State Government to complete the assessment and payment of the compensation. With aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.