JUDGMENT These 4(four) writ applications have been filed in relation to allotment of lands in favour of the petitioners, cancellation of such allotment by order dated 23.8.2011 and initiation and continuance of the Land Acquisition Proceeding without consideration of the objections filed under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) Writ Petition (C) No. 610 of 2012 and W.P(C) No. 671 of 2012 have been filed challenging the order of cancellation and allotment and Writ Petition (C) No. 340 of 2012 and W.P(C) No. 105 of 2013 have been filed challenging initiation and continuance of land acquisition proceeding without consideration of the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since all the four writ petitions are interconnected, they were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of in this common judgment. The two sets of writ applications are dealt with separately in this common judgment. (3) The brief facts leading to filing the above two writ petitions are as follows: The revenue Department, Govt. of Manipur issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) for acquiring 1.497 acre for a public purpose, i.e. construction of a 5 Star Hotel in Hotel Imphal premises/ surrounding areas of Hotel Imphal in Village No.25(A)- Kabo Leikai (Nongpok) in Imphal East District vide notification dated 17.12.2010. Subsequently notifications were also issued under Sections 6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Some parts of the land sought to be acquired were under possession of 30 pattadars. (4) Some portions of the land adjacent to Naga Nalla in western side were encroached and physically occupied by unauthorized persons. Some of the above unauthorized encroachers submitted application to the then Dy. Commissioner, Imphal for allotment of those portion of the aforesaid lands lying in the western side of the Naga Nalla covered by C.S. Dag No. 622/1655. On the basis of their application a proposal from the then Dy. Commissioner, Imphal dated 29.6.1992 was addressed to the Commissioner, Land Revenue asking to initiate proceedings for allotment of land in favour of those applicants numbering 35 and said file was processed. The proposal was referred to the Commissioner (Works), Secretary (IFC), Secretary (EDA) for furnishing their views and comments. Commissioner, Imphal dated 29.6.1992 was addressed to the Commissioner, Land Revenue asking to initiate proceedings for allotment of land in favour of those applicants numbering 35 and said file was processed. The proposal was referred to the Commissioner (Works), Secretary (IFC), Secretary (EDA) for furnishing their views and comments. Thereafter, no further process was undertaken on the said file and no orders were passed for allotment of these lands to any of the unauthorized occupants who had applied for such allotment. When the matter stood thus, four persons submitted representation to the Minister (Revenue) on 30.7.1996 for allotment of land and separate file was made and processed. However, the initial 35 applicants who were in unauthorized occupation of the land and in whose favour no final order had been passed by the Government for allotment, were found to have been allotted the land without approval of the State Government. It was also found that some of such illegal allottees had transferred their lands within 10 years from such allotment which was prohibited under Rule 15 (1) of the MLR & LR (Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. (5) When the matter came to the notice of the Government, the Vigilance Department (Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption) Manipur was directed to conduct an enquiry. A detailed enquiry was conducted and report was submitted to the Government by the Directorate of Vigilance. In course of enquiry, Vigilance Department found the allotment to be null and void and without any authority as well as without any approval of the Government and accordingly recommended for declaring such allotment in favour of the 35 applicants as null and void. (6) On the basis of such enquiry report submitted by the Directorate of Vigilance, all the petitioners were served with notice to show cause on 11.7.2011 as to why the allotments made in their favour in contravention of the rules for such allotment shall not be declared null and void. None of the petitioners or other allottees submitted any reply to the said show cause notice. Consequently, by order dated 23.8.2002 the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, the purchasers who had purchased the lands from such allottees, were declared to be null and void. None of the petitioners or other allottees submitted any reply to the said show cause notice. Consequently, by order dated 23.8.2002 the allotment made in favour of the petitioners, the purchasers who had purchased the lands from such allottees, were declared to be null and void. However, before initiation of the above process, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act had already been made and the Land Acquisition proceeding was continuing, ultimately resulting in an award. In the meantime, all the unauthorized occupants were also evicted from the land under their occupation, the buildings standing thereon were demolished and compensation was assessed in respect of the buildings standing thereon and some of such affected persons also accepted compensation. (7) The contention of petitioners, in all the four writ applications, is that once the proceedings under the L.A. Act was initiated and objections were called for under Section 5(A) of the Act, without disposing of the objections filed under Section 5(A) of the Act, no other proceeding could be initiated. It was also contended that without considering objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5(A) of the Act, the land acquisition process continued and award was passed. Further contention is that if the allotments made in favour of the petitioners were not in accordance with the Rules, before initiating the land acquisition proceeding, the State Government should have taken the exercise of finding out as to whether such allotments were legal or not. The land acquisition proceeding having been initiated on the basis that the petitioners were the land owners, it was no more open for the State to say that the allotments made in favour of the petitioners by the then Dy. Commissioner were in contravention of the Rules. It was also contended by the petitioners that had the proceedings under the L.A. Act not been initiated and proceeding for eviction on ground of illegal allotment had been initiated, they would have got an opportunity to contest and without initiating any proceeding for eviction, they could not have been evicted forcibly by the State authorities. (8) The learned counsel appearing for the State authorities raised preliminary objection stating that one set of petitioners have filed two writ petitions out of the above four for the same relief in relation to the same cause of action. (8) The learned counsel appearing for the State authorities raised preliminary objection stating that one set of petitioners have filed two writ petitions out of the above four for the same relief in relation to the same cause of action. Apart from the above technical objection, it was contended that once the allotment in favour of the petitioners was declared to be null and void, they had no right to challenge the land acquisition proceeding, not being owners of the properties sought to be acquired. It was also contended that the order passed by the State Government declaring the allotment made in favour of the petitioners null and void having not been challenged, the petitioners cannot challenge the acquisition proceeding so long they are not declared owners of the properties sought to be acquired. Therefore, even if the land acquisition proceeding had reached the stage of award, the same is not open to be challenged at the instance of the petitioners who are no more owners of the lands acquired under notification issued u/s 4 of the L.A. Act. (9) I have heard Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel appearing for all the writ petitioners, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General and Mr. A. Bimol, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents at length. (10) It is not in dispute that all the petitioners had submitted applications for allotment of land at North AOC at A.T. Land Area. Under Annexure-R/21 to the additional affidavit in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the then Dy. Commissioner Imphal East Manipur by order dated 14.2.2001 allotted different patches of land in favour of 35(thirty five) applicants under Section 14(1) of the MLR & LR Act, 1960 and all the 35 applicants paid the premium. Since the allotment was made for residential purposes, it appears that residential houses were also constructed over the allotted lands. In course of time, some of such allottees sold part of the land allotted to them to different persons. While they were continuing to be in possession of such allotted lands, notice under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued on 17.12.2010 for acquiring the land under their occupation for the purpose of construction of a 5 star hotel by the State in collaboration with one private firm. While they were continuing to be in possession of such allotted lands, notice under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 was issued on 17.12.2010 for acquiring the land under their occupation for the purpose of construction of a 5 star hotel by the State in collaboration with one private firm. Objections were also filed under Section 5A of the L.A. Act and thereafter, notification u/s 6 and 9 were also issued and ultimately an award was passed. When the process of land acquisition was on its way, it came to the notice of the State that allotment made in favour of these 35 applicants- most of whom are the petitioners before this Court, had been done in contravention of the Rules. Accordingly, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Manipur was directed to conduct and enquiry and submit a report. (11) On 8.7.2011 the Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Manipur conducted an enquiry and submitted an interim report. In course of investigation, the Vigilance Directorate found that though on the basis of the applications submitted by the said 35 applicants a proposal had been submitted by the then Dy. Commissioner for allotment of such lands and views were also obtained from different departments, no further action was taken. Thereafter, at no point of time Govt. had passed any order of approval for such allotment. In absence of such approval from the competent authority, the then Dy. Commissioner, without any authority, issued the allotment orders on 14.2.2001. On the basis of the said interim report, all the petitioners and other applicants who had been allotted with lands by the then Deputy Commissioner, were directed to show cause on 11.7.2011 as to why such illegal allotments made in their favour should not be cancelled/ declared null and void. None of the allottees including the petitioners submitted any reply to the said show cause notice. In the meantime, the Directorate of Vigilance submitted the final report on 6.8.2011 recommending the State Government to declare such allotment null and void. Since none of the allottees including the petitioners submitted reply to the show cause notice, the competent authority on the basis of the vigilance report, declared all such allotments to be null and void, as such allotments had been made by the then Deputy Commissioner without any authority and in contravention of MLR & LR(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. Since none of the allottees including the petitioners submitted reply to the show cause notice, the competent authority on the basis of the vigilance report, declared all such allotments to be null and void, as such allotments had been made by the then Deputy Commissioner without any authority and in contravention of MLR & LR(Allotment of Land) Rules, 1962. (12) Therefore, the question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can maintain the writ applications challenging the said land acquisition proceeding, the allotment made in their favour having been declared null and void. It is true that the process for examining the legality of allotments made in favour of the petitioners started much after Section 4 Notification was issued on 17.12.2010. Even by the time the State Government started the process of examining the legality of the allotments made in favour of the petitioners, objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act had already been filed on 11.2.2011. However, there is no dispute that in course of the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, it was brought to the notice of the Government that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners by the then Dy. Commissioner was without approval of the State Government and accordingly the Vigilance Department was directed to conduct enquiry. On the basis of the interim report submitted by the Directorate of Vigilance, notices were issued to all the petitioners to show cause as to why such allotments shall not be cancelled or declared null and void and be resumed. Undisputedly, none of the petitioners submitted any reply to the said show cause notice. Therefore, the State authorities had no other option except to accept the Vigilance report which had been prepared on the basis of the documents in the Revenue Department and declare the allotments made in favour of the petitioners null and void. (13) Once such allotment is declared null and void, it is presumed that there was no such allotment in favour of the petitioners at any point of time. If there was no such allotment in favour of the petitioners at any point of time, said allotments having been declared null and void, it is not open for them to challenge the land acquisition proceeding as they were not the owners of the properties sought to be acquired under the said proceeding. If there was no such allotment in favour of the petitioners at any point of time, said allotments having been declared null and void, it is not open for them to challenge the land acquisition proceeding as they were not the owners of the properties sought to be acquired under the said proceeding. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 . In paragraph 13 of the judgment the apex Court held that there can be no quarrel with respect to the settled legal proposition that a purchaser, subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification in respect of the land, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and can only claim compensation as the sale transaction in such a situation is void qua the Government. Any such encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer of the land in question, that is made after the issuance of such notification, would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the Government. Though the facts in the present case are different, as the allotments had been made prior to issuance of notification under section 4, the moment such allotment is declared to be void, it is no more open to such void allottees to challenge the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (14) Similar view has also been expressed by the Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran and Another v. Administrative Officer and Others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 . (15) Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had placed reliance on some decisions with regard to non consideration of objection under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. I have not referred to those decisions since I find that the allotments made in favour of the petitioners having been declared null and void and the said order having not been challenged by the petitioners, it is not open for them to challenge the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government. I have not referred to those decisions since I find that the allotments made in favour of the petitioners having been declared null and void and the said order having not been challenged by the petitioners, it is not open for them to challenge the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government. I am, therefore, of the view that these writ petitions at the instance of the petitioners are not maintainable challenging the land acquisition proceedings as the allotments made in their favour had been declared to be null and void. It was contended by Mr. BP Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were forcibly evicted from the lands under their occupation and the residential houses constructed by them were demolished. The petitioners may be entitled to compensation if such forcible eviction has been done. (16) Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General Manipur submitted that in respect of residential houses already demolished, compensation had been assessed and 15(fifteen) out of the total number of applicants, have received the compensation. I am not inclined to make any observation or give any finding with regard to such submission as it is open for the petitioners to claim compensation in an appropriate court of law. (17) In these two writ applications the petitioners have challenged the order passed by Revenue Department, Govt. Of Manipur dated 23.8.2011 holding that such allotment made in favour of the petitioners is null and void. The facts leading to initiation of land acquisition proceeding, the order of cancellation dated 23.8.2011 have already been dealt with earlier in the previous two writ petitions and there is no necessity of repeating the same. As is evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents on the basis of the applications filed by the petitioners for allotment of lands, the then Deputy Commissioner had forwarded their applications to the Government for approval and views of different Departments were sought for. No further step was taken by the Revenue Department according approval for such allotment. In absence of any such approval, the then Deputy Commissioner made the allotment in favour of the petitioners. No further step was taken by the Revenue Department according approval for such allotment. In absence of any such approval, the then Deputy Commissioner made the allotment in favour of the petitioners. In course of the land acquisition proceeding when this fact was brought to the notice of the Government, a vigilance enquiry was directed and on the basis of the vigilance enquiry report all the petitioners were issued notices to show cause as to why such allotment shall not be cancelled and declared null and void. None of the petitioners filed any objection or reply to the said notice, as a result of which relying on the report of the vigilance Department the said order dated 23.8.2011 was passed by the Revenue Department, Govt. Of Manipur not only cancelling the allotment but also declaring such allotments to be null and void. This order is the subject matter of challenge in these two writ petitions. (18) Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 specifically provides that the Deputy Commissioner may, with the prior approval of the Government, allot land belonging to the Government for agricultural purpose or for construction of dwelling house in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf under the Act. Though a specific stand was taken in the counter affidavit that Government had at no point of time accorded approval for such allotments, the petitioners have not produced copy of any order passed by the Government in the appropriate Department approving such allotment. In absence of any approval from the appropriate Department of the Government, the then Dy. Commissioner had no jurisdiction or authority to allot lands in favour of the petitioners. The Vigilance report only shows that such allotments were made by the then Deputy Commissioner without obtaining approval of the appropriate Department of the Govt. Of Manipur. When notices were sent to the petitioners, they did not file any reply and therefore there was no other option left to the State authorities except to accept the Vigilance Report and declare the allotments made as null and void with reference to the records available with the Government. Since all the allotments were made without prior approval of the Government by then Deputy Commission, such allotments have been rightly declared to be null and void and without jurisdiction. Since all the allotments were made without prior approval of the Government by then Deputy Commission, such allotments have been rightly declared to be null and void and without jurisdiction. I, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the order dated 23.8.2011 passed by the Revenue Department, Govt. Of Manipur cancelling allotments made in favour of the petitioner and declaring such allotments to be null and void. (19) Consequently, all the four writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed.