As agreed to by both parties, this writ petition is disposed of in the light of the interim order dated 11.01.2005 passed in C.Misc.Appln.No. 181 of 2004 which reads as follows:- “ Heard Mr.N.Kerani Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.N.Umakanta, learned counsel for the present misc. appln. i.e. C.M. Appl.No. 181/2004 for vacating/modifying the interim order passed by this court on 12.1.2004 in WP(C) No. 5/2004. In the said order of this court, the Director of Settlement & Land Records is restrained from taking any action in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 25.11.2003 bearing Memo No.4/172/GHC/94-DIR. This being the matter related with the interim order, any observation made by this court while dealing with the interim order shall only be tentative and shall not be binding to this court while finally disposing the present writ petition. Short factual matrix of the present misc. appln. is that the Government Fishery known as Loushipat Fishery bearing no.193 lying within Thoubal District had been Departmental Enquiry-reserved in the year, 1960 and allotted to 992 persons under the allotment order dated 30.4.1971. Members of the Loushi Hill Cutting Committee had already approached this court by filing C.R. No. 225/95 and in the said C.R.No.225/95 the grounds for cancellation of the allotment order dated 30.4.1971 are that: (a) None of the allottees (992 allottees) had taken possession of the allotted land nor possession was delivered to them by any competent authority so far; (b) No premium amount indicated in the allotment order was paid nor received by the authority despite notice for payment within one month; (c) No deed of allotment was executed as laid down in the allotment order, (d) Persons from places outside 8 kms or 5 miles and different districts etc. were granted allotments; (e) Transfer of allotted lands within 2 or 3 years to different persons without permission of the Deputy Commissioner in violation of rules; & (f) Use of forged T.Rs so as to cover up time-barred payment of premium etc. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, had finally disposed of the said C.R.No.225/95 by passing a reasoned judgment and order dated 8.9.2000(Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition). By the order dated 8.9.2000 passed in C.R.No.225/95, this Court had upheld the allotment order dated 30.4.1971. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, had finally disposed of the said C.R.No.225/95 by passing a reasoned judgment and order dated 8.9.2000(Annexure-A/7 to the writ petition). By the order dated 8.9.2000 passed in C.R.No.225/95, this Court had upheld the allotment order dated 30.4.1971. This court, while disposing of the said C.R.No.225/95 by passing final judgment and order dated 8.9.2000, had allowed the State Government to hold an inquiry because of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The directions of this court while passing the said final judgment and order in C.R.no.225 /95 had mentioned in para-16, which is quoted below for easy reference: “ Before I part with this case, I would like to make it clear that it shall be open to the State respondents to inquire into the allegations and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Further, I hope and trust that the State respondents shall sympathetically consider the case of the members of the Loushipat Hill Cutting Committee who or whose predecessors-in-interest participated in hill cutting but did not get allotment of any land in the lottery drawn earlier, subject to the availability of surplus land in the erstwhile Loushipat Fishery and subject to the provisions of the relevant Acts and Rules.” It appears that Director of Settlement & Land Records had taken up steps in pursuance of the direction of this court passed in C.R.No. 225/95. As the Director, Settlement & Land Records had taken steps in pursuance of the said order of this court passed in C.R.No.225/95; inquiry to be held by the Director of Settlement & Land Records is circumscribed by the decision of this court in C.R.No.225/95. Therefore, Director, Settlement & Land Records is to hold inquiry in the light of the directions & observations made by this Court in C.R.No.225/95. The Director, Settlement & Land Records has also to keep in mind that the steps taken up by the Deputy Commissioner, for reviewing the order dated 30.4.1971 had already been decided by the Revenue Tribunal in his judgment and order dated 28.9.95 passed in Revenue Review Misc.Case No.4/95. The said decision of the learned Revenue Tribunal is to be kept in mind while holding inquiry in pursuance of the impugned notification dated 25.11.2003. The said decision of the learned Revenue Tribunal is to be kept in mind while holding inquiry in pursuance of the impugned notification dated 25.11.2003. Mr.N.Kerani Singh, learned senior counsel submits that the present writ petitioners had already filed their written statement to the Director of Settlement & Land Records, Government of Manipur in response to the impugned notification dated 25.11.2003. For the reasons mentioned above, the order of this court dated 12.1.2004 is modified to the extent that the Director, Settlement & Land Records shall hold inquiry in the light of the observations and decisions made by this court in the final judgment and order dated 8.9.2000 passed in C.R.No. 225/95 as well as the judgment & order of the learned Tribunal dated 28.9.95 passed in Revenue Review Misc.Case No.4/95. In other words, the inquiry to be held by the Director, Settlement & Land Records is circumscribed by the earlier decision of the learned Revenue Tribunal dated 28.9.95 passed in Revenue Review Misc.Case No.4/95. From perusal of the final decision of this court mentioned above as well as order of learned Revenue Tribunal passed in the said Revenue Review Misc.Case No.4/95 it appears that the concerned authority is not barred from making allotment of the surplus land to the members of the Loushi Hill Cutting Committee according to the procedures laid down for allotment of land by the Manipur Land Revenue & Land Reforms (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962 and MLR & LR Act, 1996. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.