SARUNGBAM JOYKUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Appeal, the judgment and order dated 04.01.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1141/2005 by alearned Single Judge of this court, is under challenge. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein. BACKGROUND FACTS:

(2.) The writ petitioners are the true and absolute owners of the lands and the buildings constructed thereon situated inside the palace compound at Imphal. Each one of them had purchased years ago small extent of lands from late Maharaja fora valid consideration and thereafter constructed their respective houses and living therein. The said properties are sought to be acquired compulsorily vide Notification dated 11.04.2005 fora public purpose, namely. Protection of Historical Monuments of Maharaja and Rajdarbar of New Palace. Being aggrieved by the notification issued under Section 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") the appellants herein challenged the same in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which ultimately came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No, 67/2005. This court took the view that the challenge to the impugned notification is a premature one since the appellants had the remedy under the provisions of the very same Act, This court accordingly directed the appellants to raise ail their objections under Section 5 A of the Act. The court, however, took the view that the purpose for which the lands and buildings are sought to he acquired cannot be said to be not for a public purpose.

(3.) The appellants thereafter filed detailed objections before the Collector, inter alia, contending that out of the total area available in the palace Compound only l/6th of the area, a part of which is owned and possessed by the appellants, is sought to be acquired to throw out the appellants from then lauds and buildings in the name of Protection of Historical Monuments of Maharaja and Rajdarbar of New Palace. The remaining area in possession of various other individuals have been left untouched and the plan, if any, docs not suggest as to why the lands and buildings in possession of the appellants alone arc sought to be acquired. Objections were also raised contending that the proposed acquisition is not for public purpose. The sum and substance of the objections raised are that the properties in possession of the appellants are not needed for acquisition for the ostensible purpose of Protection of Historical Monuments of Maharaja and Rajdarbar of New Palace.