Writ under Article 226 maintainable to direct compensation for acquired land despite alternate remedies due to administrative inaction, enforcing Article 300A right to property with inferred compensation obligation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

“That the present writ application is being filed for appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent Authorities particularly the respondent no.3 District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna to pay adequate payment to the petitioner in view of the fact that land bearing plot no.29 appertaining to khata No.68 has been acquired for N.T.P.C. Project at Barh with the interest as same has been acquired much earlier but no compensation amount has been paid to the petitioner and/or for any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in course of hearing of this writ application.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Sevait/Mahanth of Lalji Bhagwan Thakurwari at Pandarak, District Patna, and claims raiyati rights over land appertaining to S.P. No. 29, Khata No. 68, measuring 0.80 acre, situated at Mauza Mamrakhabad, Thana No. 11, P.S. Pandarak, District Patna, recorded in the name of the Thakurwari. The said land was acquired for construction of a rail siding for the NTPC, Barh project, but no compensation has been paid to the petitioner on the ground that the land was allegedly declared surplus. However, in Ceiling Case No. 1/8 of 1974-75/1984-84 under the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, the Additional Collector, Patna, by order dated 26.03.1984, held that the land was not surplus and dropped the proceeding, whereafter the land was mutated in the petitioner’s name and rent receipts were issued. The petitioner claims title and possession through a registered sale deed dated 14.04.1949 and asserts that the revenue records have consistently stood in his favour without dispute from any quarter. Earlier, the then Sevait, Mahanth Ram Lakhan Das, filed C.W.J.C. No. 7937 of 2020, in which this Court, by order dated 10.05.2020, directed the petitioner to approach the Collector, Patna, who was to verify whether the petitioner was a raiyat in possession prior to acquisition and, if so satisfied, to ensure payment of compensation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the Collector in L.A. Case No. 02/2008-09 seeking payment, but despite the Court’s direction and repeated steps taken by the petitioner, no compensation has been released till date. Owing to non-payment, the petitioner, as Sevait of the temple, is facing acute financial hardship in managing daily religious activities, Puja and distribution of prasad, and developmental works of the Thakurwari have also come to a standstill.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the relief as sought for in the present writ petition, for which the petitioner has already filed a detailed application before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Patna on 24.05.2010 and since then, no action has been taken on the application of the petitioner.

5. This Court is aware of the inaction on part of the revenue authorities mainly Bara Babu and Chhota Babu ( UDC and LDC) of the Collector’s office who at times intentionally don’t place the application of the aggrieved person for being adjudicated. Present is one case, on account of inaction of the Collectors, who were posted at the relevant time to till date have not been able to have control over their subordinates and the office staffs, petitioner has been forced after 10 years to file writ petition