MD BASIR KHAN; SECY GIT PARK; H BRAJALALA SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION; MD ABDUL GAFUR & 15 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above three appeals arise out the order dated 30.07.2011 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Manipur East in LA No.27 of 2009/1 of 2011.

(2.) Notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published for acquisition of 27.12 acres of land situated at Village No. 9, Chingmeirong Nongpok, Imphal East District for the purpose of construction of Government Information Technology Park. Notice u/s section 6 was made on 20.1.2007 and the Collector, Land Acquisition, Imphal East District was directed to take order for acquisition of the said land u/s 7 of the Act. Thereafter, notice u/s 9 of the Act was issued calling for claims and objection to the measurement made u/s 8 of the Act. An enquiry, as contemplated u/s 11 of the Act, was conducted and thereafter, an award was passed by DC/Collector, Land Acquisition, Imphal East District on 5th February, 2009. 15 claimants filed application for reference claiming higher compensation and the Collector, Land Acquisition, Imphal East made a reference u/s 18 of the Act on 26.06.2009. All reference made were taken up together by the learned Addl.District Judge(FTC), Manipur East in the above land acquisition case and the compensation was enhanced from Rs.6.66 per sq.ft to Rs. 22.09 per sq.ft. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation allowed by the learned Addl.District Judge (FTC), Manipur East, two appeals have been preferred by some of the claimants bearing Nos. RFA No.4 of 2013 and RFA No.5 of 2011. Challenging the compensation awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Manipur East, Secretary, Government Information Technology Park, Imphal, Manipur has also filed an appeal vide FAO (G) No.1 of 2011. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Manipur East enhancing the compensation, they were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of in this common judgment.

(3.) In RFA No. 4 of 2013, the appellant No.1 was claimant No.11, the appellant No. 3 was also claimant No.11, the appellant No.4 was claimant No.12 and the appellant No.5 was claimant No.13. Similarly, in RFA No.5 of 11, the appellant No.1 was claimant No.6, the appellant No.2 was claimant No.2, the appellant No.3 was claimant No.1, the appellant No.4 was claimant No.3, the appellant No.5 was claimant No.5, the appellant No.6 was also claimant No.6, the appellant No.7 was claimant No.7, the appellant No.8 was claimant No.9 and the appellant No.10 was claimant No.10. Except appellant No.1 in FRA No.5 of 2011, rest of the claimants-appellants have filed the appeal for further enhancement of compensation in respect of the land acquired. The appellant No.1 in the above appeal, Md. Basir Khan has preferred the appeal not only for enhancement of compensation in respect of the land acquired but also compensation towards loss of earning. It's claimed by him that he was running a school on the land acquired and after acquisition, there has been loss of earning. The other appeal bearing FAO (G) No. 1 of 2011 has been filed by the Government Information Technology Park challenging enhancement of compensation.