The decision-making process under Sections 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act must reflect the application of mind by the Collector and the Government, and the Government is duty-bound to record reasons in support of its conclusion that the land in question is needed for a public purpose and suitability thereof.

B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.

1. In this writ appeal, the judgment and order dated 4.1.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 1141/2005 by a learned 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 for a valid consideration and thereafter constructed their respective houses and living therein. The said properties are sought to be acquired compulsorily vide Notification dated 11.4.2005 for a 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 all their objections under Section 5A of the Act. The court, however, took the view that the purpose for which the lands and buildings are sought to be 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 16th 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 their lands 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, does not suggest as to why the lands and buildings in possession of the appellants alone are 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.

4. The Collector, Land Acquisition, Imphal East having provided an opportunity of being heard to the appellants submitted his report dated 12.9.2005 to the Govt. of Manipur, together with record of the proceedings, for the decision of the Government. The Government thereafter issued declaration and got the same published, vide Notification dated 23.9.2005 declaring that the lands specified are needed for Acquisition/Protection of Historical Monuments of Maharaja and Rajdarbar of New Palace. The appellants once again filed a writ petition challenging not only the notification issued and published under Section 6 of the Act but as well as the draft notification issued and published in the Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the lands for public purposes.

Submissions:

5. Shri N Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that the appellants are not challenging the draft notification issued and published under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the lands for a public purpose inasmuch as the question as to whether proposed acquisition is for public purpose or not has attained its finality by virtue of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 67/2005 and, therefore, the same question cannot be re-agitated. The learned senior counsel confined his submissions to the challenge of declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. The contention was, the objections raised have