JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

Heard Mr. Abhinay Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of order contained in Memo No. 130 dated 24.02.2020 issued by the Deputy Collector, Hilsa, Nalanda, whereby the application of the petitioner for conversion of his land from agricultural to non-agricultural use has been rejected. A further direction be issued calling upon the respondent to bring on record the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, as referred to in the Memo No. 130 dated 24.02.2020 and the same be quashed.”

3. Mr. Abhinay Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made an application under Section 5 of the Bihar Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agriculture Purposes) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2010”) in requisite Form No.3 giving all the details before the competent authority notified under the Act, 2010 for conversion of his land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. Learned counsel submitted that from the order impugned dated 24.02.2020 as contained in Annexure-6 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Hilsa, Nalanda (hereinafter referred to as “DCLR”), no reason has been assigned, why his application has been rejected. He points out that only ground of rejection is that if the land is converted for non-agricultural purpose, the same will create nuisance in the area. It is submitted that without any evidence or taking into consideration of any criminal activities or any report obtained from the local police on the basis of inquiry, the order cannot sustain. On these basis, learned counsel submitted that the order is required to be set aside and quashed having passed without application of mind.

4. Per contra, Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a reasoned order has been passed as contained in Memo No. 130 dated 24.02.2020 by the DCLR assigning reason that the land for which the petitioner has made an application for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural, he has taken the aforesaid land on lease and without consent or any application made by the original landholder, the DCLR has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and as such the order is supported by the valid reasons and requires no interference by this Court.

5. Heard the parties.

6. The petitioner made an application before the competent authority for conversion of his lease hold land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose on 23.07.2018 and finally the said application was disposed of by the DCLR vide reasoned order dated 24.02.2020 contained in Memo No. 130 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner of the land rather he is the lessee. Petitioner has brought on record registered lease agreement dated 18.07.2018 duly executed by Shri Ravindra Sharma, the original landholder.

7. I have perused the terms and conditions of the lease agreement which don’t grant any right to the petitioner to change the very nature of the land which has been leased out to the petitioner nor the agreement binds the petitioner to make payment of the rent to the Revenue Authority on behalf of the lessor – the original landholder.

8. The Act, 2010 defines Occupier and Owner as under:

(j) “Occupier” includes (

i) any person for the time being paying or liable to pay the rent, or any portion of the rent, for the land or, for the structure constructed thereon;

(ii) a rent free occupant;

(k) "Owner" includes any person for the time being receiving or entitled to receive, whether on his own account, or as an agent, trustee, guardian, manager or receiver, for another per