PARAMJEET SINGH BHATIA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an internal communication Annexure P-4 was made by the Additional Collector to the District Registrar on 12/12/2020 wherein on a stretch of land 27.19 Km construction of road was proposed. Consequently, the transfer of the land or any creation of charge was prohibited. He would submit that the petitioner is one of the purchaser in respect of such part of land which fall on such stretch of land. He submits that the letter Annexure P-4 which was by Additional Collector Korba was neither published in any notification nor it was made known to general public to have a binding effect. He would submit unless and until the notification is made, the general public would not in know of the fact of such restraint. He further submits that such rider restraining sale of land cannot be imposed by the Collector as decided by this Court in a reported case AIR 2011 CG 14. It is contended in order to commit an offence there has to be some breach of law enacted under the Constitution. He would submit that the communication by Additional Collector for restraint would not be within the fold of enacted law and he refers to the AIR 1968 SC 1313 wherein it is stated that the law must mean enacted law. He further submits therefore the offence is not made out. Further, it is submitted that as per Sec. 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act, 2013), no notification is made till date. Therefore, the effect would be there cannot be any such restriction and if after notification transactions are made, the effect would be nullity as per Sec. 11(4) of the Act, 2013. He further submits that the order of the Collector therefore is overreaching the Central Act of 2013 for which the Collector is not empowered.

(3.) Issue raised by petitioner needs consideration.