PRADIP KUMAR SENGUPTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 627/2, 639, 646/1, 646/4, 646/5, 650, 660/3 area 1.177, 0.263, 0.263, 0.263, 0.466, 1.052 and 2.023 hectare respectively situated in village Baroud, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (for short 'the said property'), which he had purchased by way of registered sale deeds dtd. 28/8/1990 from its erstwhile owners namely Sachikant Rai, Sukant Rai (Minor) son of Shri Sachikant Rai, Subhash Chandra Rai son of Shri Prafulla Chandra and Sudhir Rai son of Shri Prafulla Chandra. After purchase, petitioner submitted an application before the Patwari concerned for mutation of said property in his name in land records. Private respondents herein submitted their objection to application for mutation. Patwari concerned considering objections raised by private respondents, forwarded application to the Tahsildar for adjudication. The Tahsildar passed an order in favour of petitioner ordering for mutation of said property in the name of petitioner. The order of Tahsildar was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) in appeal under Sec. 44 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code of 1959'). The Appellate Authority without issuing proper notice to petitioner proceeded with case recording presence of one of the counsel on behalf of petitioner, who was appointed by private respondents, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Tahsildar and remanded back the matter to Tahsildar for passing order afresh on mutation application after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. After remand, petitioner was not served and private respondents herein in collusion with revenue authority concerned as also counsel appearing before the Tahsildar got passed an order of mutation in their favour. Petitioner is resident of Kolkata (West Bengal), after getting knowledge about order of mutation passed in favour of private respondents by Tahsildar after remand of case by appellate authority, he preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and consequently appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer (R) dismissing appeal on the ground of delay, petitioner preferred second appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, which is pending consideration. Petitioner again submitted an application before the Tahsildar for mutating said property in his name in land records, which was again rejected against which petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (R) and after dismissal of appeal, petitioner preferred second appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, which is also pending consideration. Said property has been acquired by respondent SECL by initiating land acquisition proceedings under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957') and also determined compensation payable. Petitioner raised objection before respondent SECL authorities vide application dtd. 27/12/2016 whereupon respondent SECL directed petitioner to submit documents establishing his title and ownership over the said property. Petitioner submitted documents of his title and ownership but respondent SECL is not satisfied and now they are intending to release amount of compensation in favour of private respondents in lieu of acquisition of land acquired. As the petitioner had purchased said property by way of registered sale deeds, therefore, respondent SECL authorities be directed to release amount of compensation in favour of petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent SECL would submit that proceeding for mutation is pending consideration before Appellate Authority. Respondents No. 2 and 3 initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1957. Notification under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1957 was issued on 14/12/2009, whereas Notification under Sec. 9 was issued by the Government of India on 16/12/2010 which was published in official gazette. In terms of Sec. 11 of the Act of 1957, rights over the land acquired is vested in respondent SECL. Names of private respondents are recorded in respect of said property. Notification under the Land Acquisition Act was published based on revenue records obtained from the State Government. On receipt of objection/application from petitioner, respondent SECL issued letter asking petitioner to submit title documents and other relevant revenue records. Petitioner submitted certain documents (Annexure R-4) and pleaded that dispute regarding ownership of said property is pending before the Commissioner. Considering the dispute between petitioner and private respondents, respondent SECL stopped payment of compensation and decided to release the same to the person who will be declared entitled for the same by the competent court of law. Respondent SECL does not have authority to probe and decide matter of ownership or title over acquired lands, it has to rely upon revenue documents maintained in government office mentioning name of owner of land. He contended under Sec. 111 of the Code of 1959 it is civil Court who is having jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to title. Sec. 117 of the Code of 1959 provides for presumption as to entries that all entries made in this Chapter in the land records shall be presumed to be correct until contrary is proved. Petitioner filed this petition as a parallel proceeding to the proceedings pending before the Commissioner.