Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Chaturbhai Babalbhai

Gujarat High Court

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Chaturbhai Babalbhai on 20 January, 2025

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/FA/887/2007                                ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 887 of 2007
                                            With
                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 888 of 2007
                                            With
                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 889 of 2007
                                            With
                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 890 of 2007
                                            With
                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 891 of 2007
                                            With
                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 892 of 2007
                                            With
                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 893 of 2007
                                            With
                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 894 of 2007
                       ======================================
                             OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
                                            Versus
                                CHATURBHAI BABALBHAI & ANR.
                       ======================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. YASH MODI, ADVOCATE FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the
                       Appellant
                       DELETED for the Defendant No. 2
                       RULE SERVED for the Defendant No. 1
                       ======================================

                       CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                                                        Date : 20/01/2025

                                                      COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Yash Modi, learned advocate for the appellant

- corporation and Mr. M. D. Rahevar, learned AGP for the respondent no.2 - State.

2. Rule is served upon the contesting respondents - original claimants. However, they have chose not to object to Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Jan 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:23:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/887/2007 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined the present appeals. Since the appeals have been admitted and are pending for hearing, this Court has proceeded with the final adjudication of the appeals in absence of the respondents - original claimants.

3. Present appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 order 43 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and award dated 11 th October, 2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Case no.5125 of of 2003 and allied matters. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.3/- per sq. mtr. from the date of taking of possession upto 31st December, 1983 and so on with all consequential benefits including the interest on the arrears of compensation @ 12% p.a. from the date of the amount has become due till 31st December, 1999 and thereafter @ 9% p.a. till the amount realized and paid by the appellant. The Reference Court has also inter alia observed that the amount of compensation fixed @ Rs.15 per annum per sq. mtr. will be increased @ 15% at every interval of three years commencing from 1st January, 2005 and has further held that increase of 15% will be calculated on the last preceding amount. The learned Judge has further held that the effect in the event of the land being not surrendered to the original owner, then in that case, the claimant shall be entitled after expiry of period of 20 years to move before the competent Court for refixation of amount of compensation in future.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/887/2007 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined

4. Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellants - corporation at the outset has invited attention of this Court to the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the Reference Court committed gross error in entertaining the reference. It was submitted that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in compensation case no.146 of 1982 by order dated 21st March, 1983 while exercising the power conferred under Sections 35 and 37 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was further pointed-out that the original claimants have approached in reference being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer only on 15th October, 2001, which was referred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Reference Court on 24th February, 2003. The aforesaid reference cases were registered with the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana being Land Reference Case nos. 5125 of 2003 to 5132 (Main LAR no. 5132 of 2003) on 24 th February, 2003. While referring to the aforesaid dates, learned advocate has further pointed-out that in fact the possession of the lands were taken by the authority on 29 th January, 2003 and the amount of award fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has also been received by the respondents - claimants. The attention of this Court was invited to the written objections raised by the acquiring body before the Reference Court, wherein specific contention was raised with regard to entertaining such reference as being time barred in view of the provisions of the Limitation Act. Despite the aforesaid objections being raised, the Reference Court without examining the aforesaid issue has proceeded to Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Jan 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:23:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/887/2007 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined allow the reference by impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeals at the instance of the appellant - corporation.

4.1 By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has invited attention of this Court to the settled legal position whereby this Court has reiterated the principles with regard to the entertaining the reference after expiry of period of limitation considering Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Learned advocate for the appellant - corporation has relied upon the following authorities.

1. In case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Vs. Shankarji Hemaji and Anr.

reported in 2008 (2) GLR 1226;

2. Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal no.4854 of 2008 and allied matters in case of Deputy General Manager, ONGC Ltd., Vs. Raol Pravinsinh Pratapsinh & 2 dated 15th June, 2015;

3. Decision of this Court in First Appeal no.3865 of 2008 and allied matters in case of General Manager Vs. Rameshji Sonaji Thakore & Anr. Dated 12 th August, 2010.

4.2 He has therefore urged this Court to allow the present appeals and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

5. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant -

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/887/2007 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined corporation and having gone through the judgment and award in light of the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant, indisputably the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was passed on 21st March, 1983, whereas, the reference was registered before the Reference Court on 24th February, 2003, which is almost after the period of delay of 20 years. The legal position as regards entertaining the reference after the period of delay in view of Article 137 of the Limitation Act is no more res integra in view of the series of decisions of this Court pronounced from time to time. Appropriate would be to refer to and rely upon the relevant observation of this Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Vs. Shankarji Hemaji and Anr. reported in 2008 (2) GLR 1226, which reads as under :-

"Even otherwise as stated above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under sec.35 of the Act as back as on 11/8/1980 determining the compensation/rent at the rate of 0.35 paise per sq.mtr. per annum which was never objected to by the original land owners / interested persons, but the same came to be accepted without raising any objection and still the respondents herein

- original claimants submitted the applications for making reference to the reference court under sub section (3) of sec.35 i.e. after a period of 21 years raising the dispute as to sufficiency of the compensation which was determined while declaring award on 11/8/1980. It is the contention on behalf of the original claimants that as under sub section (3) of sec.58 of the Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Jan 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:23:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/887/2007 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined Act on 11/8/2008, no time limit is prescribed and as it is the duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the Reference Court and as the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, the application submitted by the claimants are within the period of limitation and/or not barred by delay and laches. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer that when there is no limitation prescribed, Article 137 of the Limitation Act would come in picture and within three years from the date of cause of action, the applications could have been made. It is true that under sub section (3) of sec.35 of the Act, no limitation is prescribed. However, that does not mean that the application for reference can be made at any time. Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides that when there is no limitation prescribed or provided, three years would be the limitation and from the date of cause of action within three years, an aggrieved person can initiate proceedings. The reference court has misinterpreted the provisions of Sec.35 of the Act. While considering the submissions with regard to the limitation, the reference court has held that as the entire land acquisition proceedings and the award are null and void, Article 137 of the Limitation Act (reference court has considered sec.137 of the Limitation Act wrongly) would not be applicable, more particularly when the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, making the reference to the reference court as provided under sub section (3) of section 35 of the Act. As stated above, such a findings and the observations of the Reference Court are perverse and illegal. As Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Jan 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 27 21:23:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/887/2007 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined held by us, there was no dispute with regard to sufficiency of the possession raised by the claimants at the relevant time when the award was declared, therefore, there was no occasion for the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference court and we have also held that the reference applications are not maintainable. Even otherwise, assuming that it was the duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference court and when the Collector failed to perform his duty, in that case also, the claimants are required to initiate appropriate proceedings within reasonable time, as there is no time limit prescribed under the Act. Certainly the claimants cannot submit the applications and/ or raise the dispute after a period of 21 years.

Thus, on the ground of delay and laches the reference applications were not maintainable. As such when the applications were submitted after a period of 21 years raising dispute with regard to adequacy of the compensation awarded in the year 1980, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ought not to have referred the dispute to the reference court. As such the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself has committed an error and/or acted arbitrarily in referring the dispute to the reference Court after a period of 21 years."

6. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the Reference Court committed serious error in entertaining the reference almost after the delay of 20 years of the date of passing of the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The reference was not maintainable beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/887/2007 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2025 undefined Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides that when there is no limitation prescribed or provided three years would be the limitation and from the date of cause of action within three years an aggrieved person can initiate proceedings. Even before the Reference Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has objected to the reference by contending that no cause of action survives to file the presentation after lapse of number of years. Learned advocate for the appellant - corporation has placed on record the applications preferred under Section 35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court. The reading of the contents of such application does not throw any light on the cause of action which arose to move the Reference Court after huge delay of 20 years. Even otherwise, looking to the scheme of the Act in absence of any power being conferred upon the Reference Court to condone the delay, in my view the learned Judge committed serious error in entertaining the reference after huge delay of 20 years.

7. Hence, the present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and award dated 11 th October, 2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Case no.5125 of 2003 and allied matters is hereby quashed and set aside. Appeals stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...