Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.C. Patel vs The Collector Damoh on 10 July, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 11684 of 2014
R.C. PATEL
Vs.
THE COLLECTOR & OTHERS
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mrs. Shaheen Fatima, G.A.
For Respondents : Mr. Munish Saini, Advocate.
Order posted for: 10.07.2017.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: PRINCIPLE
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Case No. W.P. No.11684/2014
Parties Name R.C. Patel
Vs.
The Collector & others
Date of Judgment .06.2017
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsels for Petitioner: Mr. Sushil Kumar
parties Sharma, Advocate.
Respondent/State: Mrs. Shaheen
Fatima, Learned G.A.
Respondents: Mr. Munish Saini,
Advocate.
Law laid down -
Significant paragraph -
numbers
ORDER
( 10 .07.2017) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for following reliefs:
"(i) That, the Hon. Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no.2 to pay least rent and loss of compensation of land acquired at village Khajari w.e.f. The year 2001 to 2013 at the rat of 6500 per year to the petitioner and loss of 30% including the interest in the amount, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That, the Hon. Court may kindly be pleased to further direct to respondent no.2 to handover land to the petitioner in its original shape as per the terms and conditions of the award dated 31.7.1999, Annexure P-
1 because, restoration charge not paying by the respondent no.2.
(iii) Any other relief/direction/order/which deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner."
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent, Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'the ONGC') sent a proposal on 9.11.1998 for the purpose of grant of temporary lease. In the light of said proposal, the objections were called and decided by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer. An award was passed whereby the land admeasuring 3.64 hec. of the petitioner was taken on temporary lease. The rent of said land was fixed as Rs.37,400/- per year. It is further mentioned that if land is to be returned subsequently, the land shall be returned to the land owner in the same condition in which it was taken.
3. Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 started the work on the land of the petitioner. However, during drilling operations, they found that no oil is available at petitioner's land. Accordingly, the land was not further utilized by the ONGC. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the drilling to a great extent had taken place and the land was not further utilised, the petitioner preferred a representation Annexure P-2 on 2.8.2002 and requested the learned Collector to return the land and provide restoration of charges, compensation, rent and other benefits. He quantified the amount which is required for restoration as Rs.19 lacs.
4. It is submitted that on 22.5.2003, learned Collector sent a letter to the ONGC requesting them to take into account the notices sent by the farmers whose lands were taken on lease. Such notices sent by the farmers were sent along with this letter dated 22.5.2003. It is averred that an enquiry was made by Tahsildar, Damoh in relation to the grievance of the petitioner and in turn, an intimation was sent by Tahsildar to Collector on 7.1.2012 Annexure P-5. He found that the petitioners are entitled to get Rs.37,400/- per year as rent. The compensation to the tune of Rs.11,220/- per year was also quantified. In addition, it was held that petitioner is entitled to get Rs.48,620/- per year as per terms settled earlier.
5. The petitioner preferred another representation before the Collector on 11.4.2012 and requested to redress his grievances. The petitioner preferred another representation to ONGC on 24.9.2012 Annexure P-2 and requested for payment of lease rent and other dues. It is further prayed to return the land in its original shape by removing the waste material .. The petitioner also prayed for grant of compensation by sending legal notice to all the respondents. This notice was sent on 15.1.2013.
6. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are bound by the conditions of award dated 31.7.1999 Annexure P-1.
7. In view of the said conditions and on account of the fact that land is admittedly not utilized by ONGC after certain period, the land was required to be returned in the original shape to the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner is entitled to get the lease rent, compensation and other amount including interest.
8. Ms. Saheen Fatima, learned G.A. for the respondent/State placed reliance on the return. It is submitted that respondents 2 and 3 found that no oil or gas is available in the land and, therefore, the land was not required by them. The land was required to be returned to actual owner. It is admitted that it was obligatory for the ONGC to keep the status of the land in its original position but that was not done. In the return, it is further stated that the land owner would be required to restore the original position of the land by spending almost Rs.19 lacs because this is the tentative expenses determined by the Collector with the help of Executive Engineer of Department of Rural Engineering Services. It is admitted that respondents 2 and 3 are required to pay Rs.19 lacs. The entire calculation which includes other dues shows that the ONGC is required to pay Rs.40,13,944/- with interest which comes to Rs.48,600/- per year. It is submitted that the Collector wrote a letter Annexure R- 1 dated 26.11.2015 to ONGC. Learned counsel for the Government further submits that another letter dated 26.11.2015 (Annexure-R/1) was written to the General Manager, ONGC to disburse the amount to the actual land owner. It is averred that the respondents No.2 & 3 are required to make payment as determined by the respondent No.1 as per letter dated 26.11.2015 (Anneure-R/1).
9. Shri Munish Saini, learned counsel for the ONGC placed reliance on his counter affidavit. It is submitted that in the year 1999 the land to the extent of 3.64 hectares was acquired on temporary lease for the purpose of drilling operation at Khajari village and 215 hectares of land was acquired at Lakshmandam village through office of District Collector, Damoh. It is averred that the Collector, Damoh vide its award dated 31.07.1999 has fixed Rs.48,620/- as the lease rent per year for the land acquired. Shri Saini submits that ONGC has paid the amount of Rs.48.620/-per year till operation of ONGC is ceased. In other words, lease period ended on 31.03.2002 and drill activities came to halt on the said date.
10. It is further contended by Shri Saini, learned counsel for the ONGC that drilling operation was declared as dry and abandoned because no oil or gas reservoir was found in the land in question. The negotiation of ONGC with land owners in the presence of Collector had taken place on 24.05.2001 for fixing the restoration charges. The land owners demanded either to return the land in its original possession or to pay the cost for bringing the land to its original possession as per the estimation of the State Government. The stand of the ONGC is that they may request through their officer to the Collector for expediting the fixation of the restoration charges payable. The Additional District Collector, Damoh forwarded the estimation of Rs.19 Lac (estimated by Rural Engineering Services), but the ONGC did not agree with this and requested the District Collector to review the said estimation, the note-sheet showing the same is dated 04.10.2001 is filed herewith as Annexure-R/1. It is further averred that the land owner is insisted on payment of Rs.2 Lac per acre towards restoration charges which comes to Rs.22,28,000/-. It is averred that District Collector opined that the demand of land owner was on the higher side and advice given was to purchase the same land instead of taking restoration charges. The ONGC requested for reviewing the estimate. This request was followed by various letters mentioned in para 7 of the counter affidavit. In the affidavit ,the ONGC has accepted that Collector's letter for paying restoration charges to the tune of Rs.19 Lac was received by them. They further admitted that they were directed to pay the said amount by the Collector and the letter of Collector dated 26.11.2015 is filed by the ONGC as Annexure-R/1.
11. The contention of ONGC is that they have taken immediate steps to pay the amount. The lease amount to the tune of Rs.48,620/- for the period between 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002 has been paid to the collector. This amount was deposited by the ONGC in the treasury account vide Challan No.1/24 dated 07.04.20021 (Annexure-R/3). The letter communicating this fact to the Collector dated 09.04.2001 is filed as Annexure-R/4. It is averred that District Collector has not considered the fact that the land owner is in possession of his land and it is not in the custody of the ONGC. Hence, question for grant of interest does not arise.
12. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that for restoration charges, the ONGC has arranged the amount of Rs.19 Lac vide DD being No.526956 dated 04.12.2015 and the same shall be deposited with the Collector at the earliest. They have denied the claim of the petitioner regarding lease rent for 14 years @ Rs.46.620/-.
13. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and averred that from 01.04.2002, the land is in possession of ONGC. Reliance is placed on revenue entries filed with rejoinder. It is categorically pleaded that the possession of land was never handed over to the petitioner. In para 4 of the rejoinder the petitioner has reiterated his stand regarding the claim of the amount which is mentioned in the writ petition. It has been specifically pleaded that although in para 10 of the counter affidavit the ONGC averred that DD shall be deposited with the Collector at the earliest, no said deposit had been made, nor any amount has been paid to the land owner/petitioner. The reliance is placed in this regard on the letter of SDO, Damoh dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure-P/11). In this letter the SDO (Revenue) has specifically given his finding that said amount of Rs.19 Lac has not been deposited by the ONGC. Lastly, the Collector's letter dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure-P/12) is relied upon whereby the ONGC was directed to make the payment mentioned in the said letter.
14. The ONGC also filed an additional return. It is averred that by preferring Annexure-R-2/1, the ONGC requested the Collector for survey of land for fixation of restoration charges. Other correspondence in this regard dated 05.02.2016 Annexure- R-2/2 & R-2/3 are relied upon. It is submitted that the respondent ONGC earlier objected to the assessment of Rs.19 Lac for restoration charges. The respondent No.1 has not responded to the request of resurvey. The ONGC also criticized Annexure-R/2 (filed with counter affidavit) which was passed by the Collector behind the back of the ONGC. The stand of the ONGC is that demand draft for Rs.19 Lac(relating to restoration charges) was already send through communication dated 21.03.2016 (Annexure-R-2/4) to the respondent No.1. At the cost of repetition, it is averred that lease had expired in March, 2002 Payment of lease rent was already made for the said period. Land is in possession of land owners/Collector, since April, 2001 and therefore there is no question of paying lease rent beyond the said period. Lastly, it is submitted that petition is filed after a lapse of 13 years and therefore it must be dismissed on the ground of delay and letches.
15. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
16. I have heard the parties at length and pursued the record.
17. The admitted facts between the parties are that the award dated 31.07.1999 was passed by the respondent no.1 and parties are bound by this award. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefits arising out of the said award. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:
" 4@& vftZr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe esa ik;s tkus okys o`{kksa] edkuksa] dqvksa caf/k;ksa ,oa vU; laifRr dk ewY;kadu laifRr dks gksus okyh {kfr ds vk/kkj ij tc ;fn Hkwfe LFkk;h :i ls vtZu dh tkrh gS rc ;Fkk fLFkfr vuqlkj fd;k tk;xkA pwafd Hkwfe dk orZeku esa vLFkk;h vtZu fd;k tk jgk gSA vr% vHkh bldk ewY;kadu vko';d ugha gSaA 5@& vr% ifjfu.kZ; gsrq vLFkk;h :i ls vftZr dh tk jgh Hkwfe dk fdjk;k izfro"kZ :i;s 37]400@& :i;s ,rn }kjk fuEu 'krksZ ds v/khu Hkqxrku gsrq fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gS %& ¼1½ ;fn mR[kuu ds i'pkr [kfut rsy izkIr gksrk gS rks ,sls dk'rdkj ftudh Hkwfe;ksa ij edku dqvka ;k vU; fuekZ.k dk;Z gS ,oa ;fn bl laifRr dh {kfr gksrh gS rks fu;ekuqlkj dk'rdkj dks eqvkotk ds :i esa Hkqxrku djuk gksxkA ¼2½ dk;Z iw.kZ gksus ij ;fn dk'rdkj dh Hkwfr Hkfo"; esa okfil dh tkrh gS rks vkt tks uS;r Hkwfe dh gS] mlh 'kDy esa dk'rdkj dks okfil djuk iM+sxhA lkFk gh Hkwfe ij cus vuq"kkafxd fuekZ.k vkfn laifRr dks gqbZ {kfr Hkh nsuk gksxhA ¼3½ lacaf/kfr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa ikuh fudkl dh leqfpr daiuh dks gh djuk gksxhA 6@& vLFkk;h vtZu gsrq mijksDr ns; eqvkotk ¼fdjk;k½ jkf'k ij Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e la'kksf/kr ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr vtZu oSof';d izd`fr ¼izfrok;Z½ dk gksus ds 30% vfrfjDr jkf'k rks"k.k ¼lksysf'k;e½ ds :i esa Hkqxrku fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA vr% bldk lekos'k djrs gq, ifjfu.kZ; fooj.k fuEukuqlkj gS %& dz0 xzke dk Hkqxrku gsrq vf/kfu;e ds dqy Hkqxrku ;ksX;
uke fu.khZr Hkwfe izko/kkuksa ds rgr eqvkotk ¼fdjk;k½
eqvkotk ¼fdjk;k½ 30% izfro"kZ iz fro"kZ
izfro"kZ ¼rks"k.k½
1 2 3 4 5
1& [ktjh 37]400-00 11]220-00 48]620-00
d`"kd okj eqvkotk ¼fdjk;k½ fu/kkZj.k i=d i`Fkd ls layXu gSA vr% vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr mijksDr eqvkotk ¼fdjk;k½ jkf'k esa 30% izfrdj ¼rks"k.k½ jkf'k dk lekos'k dj dqy jkf'k :i;s 48]620&00 vadu vM+rkyhl gtkj NS% lkS chl :i;s ek= izfro"kZ dk vokMZ ,rn }kjk HkqxrkFkZ vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA 7@& vkosnd laLFkk esa-vks-,u-th-lh- osLV caxky izkstsDV] dydRrk ls ikfjr vokMZ dh mijksDr fu/kkZfjr jkf'k esa vfrfjDr rks"k.k jkf'k lfgr dqy jde Hkqxrku gsrq tek djkbZ tk;A 8@& lacaf/kr vftZr dh tk jgh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa-vks-,u-th- lh- ,oa lacaf/kr lHkh d`"kdksa ds chp d`"kdokj i`Fkd&i`Fkd djkj fu/kkZfjr djkj i=d esa rglhynkj] neksg }kjk le{k esa laikfnr djkdj rRi'pkr~ lacaf/kr lHkh d`"kdksa dks jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djk;k tkosaA bl laca/k esa rglhynkj] neksg dks fy[kk tk;sA 9@& Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e 1904 dh la'kksf/kr /kkjk 13&v esa micaf/kr fd, vuqlkj fyfidh; vadxf.krh; vkaDdyu esa gqbZ =qfV;ksa ds ifjektZu dh iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk vf/kdkj lqjf{kr j[krs gq, ifjfu.kZ; ¼vokMZ½ vkns'k fnukad 31@07@99 dks esjs U;k;ky; dh eqnzk ,oa gLrk{kj ls tkjh fd;k x;kA"
[Emphasis Supplied]
18. A plain reading of award shows that if land of the owner is not utilized or returned latter on, the land must be restored in the same shape in which it was taken by the ONGC. In addition, the ONGC is required to make payments for the loss caused to the construction etc. on the said land. Certain amounts were quantified which are required to be actually paid to the petitioner as per the rates fixed in the award.
19. The petitioner has categorically pleaded that although land was not utilized by the respondent after a certain period, the same was not actually returned to him. The ONGC is in possession of the land. In support of this contention, petitioner has filed relevant revenue entries with the rejoinder. There is no documentary evidence on record to show that Collector or respondent ONGC has actually returned the land to the petitioner or in other words petitioner is in possession of the land from the date it is allegedly returned by the ONGC. Thus, I am unable to hold that the land of the petitioner was actually returned to him.
20. Apart from this, the ONGC initially objected to pay Rs.19 Lac for restoration charges, later on admitted that the said amount was paid through DD dated 04.12.2015 filed as Annexure-R-2/4 with the additional return. This alleged payment makes it clear that ultimately the ONGC accepted that it has to pay the amount of restoration. However, the said amount of Rs.19 Lac was in reality never paid to the petitioner nor the other amount which was allegedly deposited through challan before the Collector was transferred in the account of the petitioner. The respondent no.1 to 3 have not ensured that the amount required to be paid as per the award has been paid to the petitioner and they are just shifting the responsibility on each other.
21. In the aforesaid factual back drop, it is clear that land of the petitioner has not been restored back to its original position nor possession has been handed over to the petitioner. The financial claims arising out of the award have not been handed over to the petitioner. At the cost of repetition, in my view, it is the joint responsibility and duty of respondent no.1 to 3 to ensure that (i) the land of the petitioner is handed over to him; (ii) if the land is not handed over in the same possession in which it was taken , in lieu thereof restoration charges are paid to the land owner; (iii) all the amounts required to be paid as per the award dated 03.07.1999 are paid to the petitioner. Even if, it is assumed that the demand draft of Rs.19 Lac was deposited by the ONGC in the year 2015, the fact remains that the said amount was not actually paid to the petitioner. The restoration charges must have been enhanced by now because of price hike of material/labour during these two years. Accordingly, respondents are required to reassess the restoration charges and pay the same to the petitioner. The land was a source of livelihood for the petitioner. It was taken over by the ONGC for drilling purposes so that gas/oil can be extracted. If ONGC failed to extract the same, in all fairness, it should have ensured that the land is restored to its original condition/position and possession thereof given to the petitioner. The respondents should have ensured that all the payments arising out of the award are paid to the petitioner or not. The action/inaction of the respondents is arbitrary and in flagrant violation of principle of fairness flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents has deprived the petitioner to undertake the agriculture/farming activity on his own land . Such deprivation has a continuous/recurring effect on the petitioner. Thus, this W.P. Can not be thrown over board on the ground of delay.
22. In view of forgoing analysis, this petition is allowed and following directions are issued to the respondents:
(i) The respondents shall restore the land of the petitioner as per its original condition which was prevailing when it was taken over or in alternatively pay the restoration charges to the petitioner by adding the additional charges (based on price hike after 2015) which must be over and above Rs.19 Lac.
(ii) The respondents shall ensured that all the payments arising out of the award are actually paid to the petitioner within 30 days. It shall be the duty of the respondents to comply with this order strictly within 60 days, failing which the amount in question will carry interest @ 12% till its realization.
23. Petition is allowed to the extent indicate herein above. No Cost.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE P/s@if