PARIKSHIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-

(2.) Mr. Dilip Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned AC to GP-18 for the State-respondents, are present and they are heard.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner along with one Sri Raghuveer Singh is the owner/holder of the land pertaining to Plot No. 1698, Khata No. 367, Thana No. 02, measuring 4.97 acres, situated at Mauza- Chausa, in the district of Buxar and to the said effect on 12/12/2019 the Land Possession Certificate (LPC) was issued in favour of the petitioner and Sri Raghuveer Singh. From the perusal of the said LPC (Annexure-1), of which land receipt has been filed as Annexure-2, it is itself evident that till 2019-20 the rent for the said land was paid. Earlier the survey plot Nos. 2038, 2039, 2047, 2048, 2051, 2052, 2055, 2057, 2058, 2077 & 2078 measuring 2.057 acres belonged to others, however, after consolidation proceedings, the said plots were allotted to the petitioner and were included in the plot No. 1698 measuring 97 acres and the petitioner along with Raghuveer Singh became the owner of the said land. Learned counsel further submitted that over the said plot No. 1698, by setting up a factory/industry, the petitioner was running his business after getting the registration certificate of the GST issued on 20/9/2017 by the Government of India and a copy of the registration certificate has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. On the basis of survey done in the year 1906-08, the Khatiyan was prepared in which the said plots were mentioned/described as agricultural land with the name of their respective land holders and thereafter, several years have passed and the entire area/locality has changed and now, in the vicinity of these plots, several commercial activities are being conducted. Learned counsel further submitted that as the petitioner had set up an industry/factory over the land pertaining to Plot No. 1698, so, for conversion of the nature of the said plot from agricultural to commercial, the petitioner had filed a petition before the competent authority upon which the authority vide its order contained in the letter No. 609 dtd. 16/12/2019 asked the Circle Officer, Chausa, to make an enquiry and submit the report about the plot No. 1698 of Mauza- Chausa, and a copy of the said letter dtd. 16/12/2019 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition. In compliance of the order dtd. 16/12/2019 issued by the competent authority, the Circle Officer, Chausa, conducted an enquiry in the matter, who vide his letter No. 37 dtd. 11/1/2020 (Annexure-5) submitted his report before the Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar, the competent authority. From a perusal of the said report dtd. 11/1/2020, it is itself evident from the report that although the plot in question was recorded as agricultural in the Khatiyan but the same was being used as commercial. Though the said report was submitted on 11/1/2020 but due to pandemic period, no further step could be taken with regard to conversion of the nature of the plot No. 1698 from agricultural to commercial. In the meantime, by publishing a notice under Sec. 11(1) of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, 'RFC Act') issued under the signature of the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Buxar (respondent No. 3), the land of the petitioner pertaining to plot No. 1698 was brought under the acquisition for the purpose of construction of the Rail Corridor for Buxar Thermal Power Station, a copy of the relevant portion of the notice published on 10/4/2021 in the newspaper has been filed as Annexure -6 to the petition. Though the petitioner's land relating to plot No. 1698 of Mauza-Chausa was brought under acquisition but no notice has been given to the petitioner with regard to the plot No. 1698 and from the perusal of the notice (Annexure -6) issued under Sec. 11(1) of the RFC Act, it is itself evident that in the said notice the survey plots Nos. 2038, 2039, 2047, 2048, 2051, 2052, 2055, 2057, 2058, 2077, 2078 of Mauza-Chausa measuring 2.057 acres were notified for acquisition and the names of the earlier owners of the said plots were included in the said notice while after consolidation proceeding, the plots had been allotted to the petitioner and merged in the plot No. 1698 and since then the plots stand in the name of the petitioner and Sri Raghuveer Singh and for this effect, the LPC (Annexure-1) has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that without verifying the details about the plots from the records with regard to the present owner of the said plots (which became plot No. 1698 after merging), the notice dtd. 10/4/2021 (Annexure-6) was issued without mentioning the actual plot number as well as without mentioning the name of the petitioner as the owner of the said land, as such, the petitioner could not be able to know about the said notice. Although, no notice was given to the petitioner, however, the petitioner came to know that the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Buxar (respondent No. 3), had issued notices to the ex-landlords under Sec. 37(2) of the RFC Act in Land Acquisition Case No. 02/2022 asking them to appear on 11/5/2022 for the payment of the award amount determined under Sec. 30 of the RFC Act. The photocopies of the notices issued under Sec. 37(2) of the RFC Act have been filed as 'Annexure- 8 series' to the petition, from which it is clearly depicted that the notices were issued in the name of the ex-landholders and also shows that the amount of compensation had been determined treating the petitioner's land as agricultural despite the petitioner carrying out commercial activity by running an industry/factory over his land pertaining to plot No. 1698 and without ascertaining these facts, the respondent No. 3 issued the said notices to the ex-landholders, which is a violation of the provisions of Sec. 11(5) of the RFC Act, which provides that after issuance of notice under Sec. 11(1) of the RFC Act, the Collector shall, before the issuance of a declaration under Sec. 19, undertake and complete the exercise of updating of land records as prescribed within a period of two months but without updating the records, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Buxar (respondent No. 3) took further steps to issue the notices (Annexure-8 series) under sec. 37(2) of the RFC Act to the ex-landholders for the payment of the compensation amount but did not issue any notice to the petitioner, who is now the actual owner of the plot in question. It has been further submitted that after coming to know about the notices issued to the ex-landholders in Land Acquisition Case No. 02/2022, the petitioner appeared before the Collector, Buxar (respondent No. 3), on the date fixed in the notices i.e., 11/5/2022, revealing the relevant facts and filed his objection petition. A photocopy of the objection petition with its receiving in the margin has been filed with this petition as 'Annexure-9'. But till date no order has been passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Buxar (respondent No. 3), upon the petitioner's objection petition. Learned counsel has further submitted that if the revenue records would have been updated by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate (respondent No. 3) then the name of the petitioner and one Raghuveer Singh would have been mentioned in the preliminary notification by correcting the same and on account of the latches on the part of the respondent No. 3, the petitioner has suffered a lot as neither any notice was issued to him nor he was given any opportunity to file his objection and very surprisingly, the Collector, Buxar (respondent No. 3) has not taken any step despite filing of the objection petition by the petitioner on 11/5/2022 on the notices which had been issued to the ex-landholders in Land Acquisition Case No. 02/2022, which shows an intentional wrong or negligence on the part of the respondent No. 3. It has been lastly submitted by petitioner's counsel that in the year 2022, the petitioner's land had been acquired after demolishing the structure of the petitioner's factory and damaging more than 100 trees, which has added a significant loss to the petitioner.