Tripura High Court
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Sri Bishu Debbarma on 25 March, 2022
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP 26 of 2021
1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
Jiban Bharati Building, New Delhi-110001
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director
ONGC Ltd., 7th Floor Jiban Bharati Building,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Asset Manager
ONGC Ltd., Tripura Asset, Agartala,
Tripura (West) Pin - 799014
-----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Sri Bishu Debbarma
S/o Sri Sukumar Debbarma,
Resident of Paschim Jarul Bachai, Padma,
Mohan Para, PO: Dubshara, PS: Srinagar,
Dist: West Tripura
---Respondent
2. The Competent Authority (RoU), The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Quarter No.B-78, South Colony, P.O-Badharghat P.S.-Amtali, Agartala, District.- West Tripura Pin-799014
---Pro-Respondent-Opposite Party For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Dasgupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Raju Datta, Adv.
Date of hearing : 22.03.2022
Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2022
Whether fit for reporting : No.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 07.05.2019 passed in Civil Misc (PMP) Page 2 of 11 25 of 2014 between Sri Bishnu Debbarma, Claimant-petitioner and the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 3 others, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala fixed compensation for damage to the business of sand quarry and earning and compensation to the tune of 10% of the value of land Rs.60,000/- per kani alongwith @ Rs.8% interest per annum. The petitioners also preferred this application for exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court against the Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc. (PMP) No.25 of 2014 between Sri Bishu Debbarma claimant-petitioner and the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation limited and 3 others respondents, whereby and whereunder the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala fixed compensation for damage to the business of sand quarry and earning and also compensation to the tune of 10% of the value of land @ Rs.60,000/- per kani alongwith @ Rs.8% interest per annum in violation of the provisions of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962 (P&MP Act, 1962) and the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1962.
[2] For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of Civil Misc (PMP) 25 of 2014. Brief facts of the present case of the claimant is that the claimant is the owner and possessor of Land measuring 0.18 acres in plot no. 4661(P) pertaining to Khatian No.1027 of Mouja-Sreenagar whereon he used to draw sandy water from river namely "Bankshwar Harun". The Claimant petitioner used to draw sandy Page 3 of 11 water from the said river with the aid of 3 (three) pump set (sand extracting Machine) and thereby the Claimant petitioner used to collect sand from the sandy water and that the petitioner has set three pump set (sand extracting Machine) for the said work and that for collection of sand the claimant petitioner has to employ four labours per day for per pump set thereby to engage 12 (twelve) labourers carrying out the sand collection and hip the sand in the said land which became as sand quarry. The petitioner also stated in his petition that the claimant petitioner used to pay Rs.500/- per day for hiring pump set (Sand extracting machine) and 6 ltr of diesel per day for one pump set was required for running the pump i.e. in total cost of 18 Ltrs of Diesel per day is required. The claimant petitioner used to produce 21 to 22 trucks of sand per day which cost is estimated at Rs.750/- per truck. The claimant stated that the respondent No.4 by issuing a notice to the claimant petitioner stated that his land mentioned herein above was required for public interest for laying down the pipe lines for transmitting of Natural Gas for the Thermal Project in Palatana. It is also stated in that notice that the claimant petitioner will not be allowed to construct building, or construct or excavate or reservoir etc or in any form of plant trees or garden and right of user shall absolutely vest with the Govt. of India. The Respondent No.4 caused a Field inquiry through competent authorities on behalf of the respondents and thereafter the field inquiry report was submitted to respondents.
Page 4 of 11[3] The claimant-petitioner claimed that prevailing market rate of land in that area was 10/12 Lacs per Kani and hence claims compensation based on the said prevailing market rate for the land and claimed Rs.45,00,000/- for sustaining huge loss due to damage of sand quarry and sand extracting too for one year and accordingly claim for 5 years for 2,25,00,000/-. The petitioner also stated that the respondent No.4 most whimsically, unreasonably and illegally awarded inadequate compensation for the land by awarding compensation of Rs. 3,14,280/-. [4] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment of compensation, the claimant filed the present application thereby asking the O.P's to determine the compensation as 10% of land value, determining the land value Rupees ten to twelve lakhs per kani and damage cost of sand quarry at the rate of Rs.15,750/- per day for 5 years along with interest @ Rs.18% per annum from the date of damage due to the laying gas pipe line by damaging the sand quarry. [5] The claim is resisted by the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 by filing written objection jointly stating that the case is not maintainable and it is barred by law of limitation. In their written objection/statement the O.Ps denied and disputed that the petitioner is entitled to land value @ Rs.10% and entitled to damage @ Rs.15,750/- per day for 5 years along with interest. In this regard the answering respondents repeatedly submits that as per inquiry report of ROU Officials Total Loss of Applicant for the current year is shown Rs.31,42,800/- and this is an estimated income and on the basis of estimated income the amount of compensation cannot be determined. Page 5 of 11 In view of his loss a lump sum of 10% of the total loss is Rs.3,14,280 & determined as compensation under section 10 of PMP Act, 1962. So, the applicant was not paid land cost separately.
[6] Respondent No.4 also filed his written statement/objection on the line of respondent No.1, 2 & 3.
[7] On the basis of the pleadings and the other material facts the following issues were framed by my predecessor.
ISSUES
(i). Whether the competent authority determined the compensation for damage of the business of the petitioner including land value property as per the petroleum and Minerals Pipe lines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land), Act 1962 for laying pipe line under the land of claimant petitioner.
(ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to have any compensation? If so, to what extent?
(iii). What relief or reliefs are entitled to?
[8] To establish his case Claimant adduced his evidence and exhibited the following documents:-
Ext:-1- Certified copy of inquiry report and payment order. Ext.2- Unregistered purchase deed dated 18.03.2008 (4 sheets) Ext.3- Registered purchase deed No.1-1866, dated 27.04.1992 (5 sheets) Mark-1- (Subject to further proof) Copy of Gazette of India dated 23.03.2012.
[9] One witness namely Sri Uttam Mandal examined himself as O.P.W.1 on behalf of respondent No.1. The witness exhibited the following documents:-
Ext-A- certified copy of gazette of India dated 23.03.2012. Ext.B- Field Inquiry Report, dated 17.03.2012. Ext.C- Certified copy of award, dt 19.03.12. Ext.D- certified copy payment register.
Ext.E- Certified copy of indemnity bond.
Ext.H- authenticated copy of no objection of the claimant.Page 6 of 11
[10] In the cross examination on behalf of claimant, the witness (O.P.W.1) stated that it is a fact that before laying down any pipe line, survey of the land is required to be conducted. It is also correct that after conducting survey a gazette notification is published and thereafter notices to the affected parties is issued and thereafter objection raised by the concerned parties are heard and finally compensation award passed by the competent authority. The witness further stated the entire process may take minimum three months. The witness stated that in the present case gazette notification was published on 23.03.2012. The witness further stated that he has not disclosed in his evidence affidavit that the award has been passed prior to gazette notification. No materials fact came out in the cross examination.
[11] From the payment order issued by the competent authority dated 19.03.12 (Ext.C), it appears after field verification, while calculating compensation:
(i) Per day labour cost for 01 pumpset; 5 labours X Rs.250 per labour= Rs.1250X30 days= Rs.37,500 X 12 month= Rs.4,50,000/-
(ii) Per day hiring Pumset(Sand extracting machine) cost for 01 Pumset Rs.500/- X30 days= Rs.15,000X12 months= Rs.1,80,000/-
(iii) Per day Diesel cost 6 Ltrs for 01 Pumpset X Rs.40/- = Rs.240/- X 30 days = Rs.7,200/-X 12 months= Rs.86,400/- Total Expenditure= (i + ii+ iii) 450000 + 180000/- +86400/- =Rs.7,16,400/-.
(iv) Per day production for 01 Pumpset is 7 truck sand X profit of one truck is Rs.700/-= Rs.4900/- X 30 days= Rs.1,47,000/- X 12 months= Rs.17,64,000/-.
Net Average yearly Gain using for 01 Pumpset and five labours Rs.17,64,000/- - Rs.7,16,400/- =Rs.10,47,600/-. The applicant has hired 03 pumpset and 15 labours and his average yearly income is 10,47,600 X 03 Pumpset= Page 7 of 11 Rs.31,42,800/-
[12] On the other hand from the said order it appears that the competent authority assess the damage of the materials for the business and loss of earning at Rs.31,42,800/-, but at the time of awarding compensation 10% of the said amount i.e. 3,14,280/- was awarded. As per Section 10(3)(iii) of the Act, due regard is to be given to any injury to any other property, whether movable or immovable, or the earnings of such persons caused in any other manner while determining compensation.
Section 10(4) of the Act, runs as follows:-
"Where the right of user of any land has vested in the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be shall in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under Sub-Section 1, be liable to pay to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting, compensation calculated at ten percent of the market value of that land on the date of the Notification under Sub- Section(1) of Section 3".
[13] In this case except the claim petition, the payment order and oral evidence, no other document is submitted in respect of the loss sustained by the petitioner in respect of his business establishment as well as earning of the petitioner, for 5 years for laying pipe line under his land.
[14] Therefore , considering the payment order, as per Section 10(3) (iii)of the Act, the court below awarded the whole amount of Rs.31,42,800/-, in favour of the petitioner towards the damage of his business establishment and loss of earnings as assessed by the competent authority.
Page 8 of 11[15] As per Section 10(5) of the Act, the market value of the land on the said date shall be determined by the competent authority and if the value so determined by that authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, it shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge referred to in sub-section (2) be determined by that District Judge. [16] It is also further observed by the court below that it is apparent that 10% of the value for loss of the materials , labour cost etc including loss of earning was determined, but actual 10% of the land value was supposed to be determined. In this case, no value of the land under which the pipe line was laid was assessed which the petitioner is entitled.
[17] In this case the petitioner only produced a sale deed bearing No.1-1866 under Exhibit-3. From the said sale deed it appears that it was executed in the year 27.04.1992 and from the copy of notification under the Act it appears that the notification under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe lines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 was issued on 23rd March, 2012. Therefore, the above sale transaction was issued 19 years before/prior to the date of notification. Hence, it is not taken into consideration. The petitioner also submitted a Gift Deed (unregistered) dated 18/03/2008 which is marked as Ext.2. Vide this Gift deed 40 satak of land was gifted to the petitioner by his father of which approximate value is Rs.60,000/-. The land of the petitioner is also situated at Mouja- Srinagar. I have stated earlier the notification was issued in the year 2012. No other sale deed was produced by the petitioner. Therefore, Page 9 of 11 since the referred gift deed was of the year 2008 and notification was of the year 2012, it is very difficult to assess the value of the land at the time of notification. Further no map or other document is produced by either of the parties to compare the potential value of the land of the petitioner and that of the land of the referred sale deed. It is also not clear how far the land of the referred sale deed is situated from the land of the petitioner. However, the time gap between execution of the referred gift deed and the date of notification under the Act is almost 4 years and during this period the price of land in the State of Tripura has become almost in increasing. From the registered sale deed (Ext.3) it is revealed that a transaction was made between Sukhuram Debbarma (purchaser) and others for land measuring 60 satak on payment of 12,000/- on 27/04/1992 i.e. approx 19/20 years before publishing Notification. No other registered sale deed were filed. Therefore, in absence of any other documents, and keeping in mind the increasing price of the land day by day, the court below assessed the price of the land of the petitioner under which pipe line was laid was Rs. 60,000/- per kani and the petitioner is entitled to 10% of the land value of his land @ Rs.60,000/- per Kani.
[18] Finally by the order dated 07.05.2019, the court below has observed in the following manner:
"In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.31,42,800/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Eight hundred) as compensation in this case for the damage to the business of sand quarry and earnings. He is further entitled to the compensation to the tune of 10% of the value of the land of the petitioner @ 60,000/- per kani. The petitioner is also entitled to the Page 10 of 11 interest @ 8% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition.
If, any compensation is already paid to the petitioner by the concerned department, the said amount is to be deducted from the aforesaid amount of compensation."
[19] Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 07.05.2019, the petitioners herein have approached this court filing the instant civil revision petition.
[20] Mr. R. Dasgupta, counsel for the ONGC-petitioners argued on the point of limitation and jurisdiction and unreasonable fixation of amount of compensation.
[21] While discussing on the point of limitations, the counsel for ONGC-petitioners has not placed anything on record to show that on which date the copy of the award has been served on the claimants and whether the limitation period of 90 days was within or after in filing of the claim before the court below. Hence, the point on limitation is negative. [22] While discussing on the point of jurisdiction, this court is of the view that the District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is empowered to entertain the claims and passing an award of compensation. But whereas in pursuant of the notification dated 24 th July, 2018 the powers have been delegated from all District Judges to all Additional District Judges for resolving the disputes relating to the fixation of the compensation.
[23] Further with regard to the separation of judicial districts this court is of the opinion that wherever the dispute is falling in the judicial district of the other judicial district, mere making an argument before the Page 11 of 11 court in a routine manner that the application cannot be entertained on the grounds of courts having no jurisdiction cannot be accepted in all pending cases. The ONGC- petitioners have not placed on record any orders obtained by high court in the form of transfer of ONGC cases from one district court to other district court having territorial jurisdiction. Hence, no case on the point of jurisdiction. The Administrative instructions of High Court of Tripura in respect of giving additional responsibilities to lower judiciary is not relevant to the facts of the case on the point of jurisdiction.
[24] Hence, this court is of the view that the court below has rightly assessed the loss sustained by the claimant and fixed fair compensation.
[25] In view of the above discussion, the civil revision petition stands dismissed affirming the order dated 07.05.2019 passed in Civil Misc (PMP) 25 of 2014 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.
JUDGE Dipak