Gujarat High Court
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. ... vs Patel Somabhai Prabhudas (Heirof Patel ... on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 867 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 869 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 870 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 871 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 872 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 873 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 874 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. (THROUGH GENERAL
MANAGER)
Versus
PATEL SOMABHAI PRABHUDAS (HEIROF PATEL PARSOTTAMBHAI
SOMDAS & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AISHWARYA REDDY M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR AV PRAJAPATI for the Respondent(s) No.1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 08/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined
1. All these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 22.09.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.5789 of 2003 to 5796 of 2003 whereby the References were partly allowed and the present appellant - O.N.G.C. was held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs.
3. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are that the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act made a proposal for temporary acquisition of the lands at village Balol District Mehsana, belonging to the respondents-original claimants. After following due procedure, the lands came to be acquired. Award came to be passed by the competent authority fixing the amount Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined of compensation.
3.1. However, being dissatisfied with the award, the original claimants raised dispute, by way of references. The Reference Court partly allowed the Reference Cases by way of the impugned judgment and award awarding Rs. 3.33 per sq. mtr. from the date of taking possession upto 31.12.1985, Rs.4/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1987, Rs.4.50 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1990, Rs.5/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1993, Rs.6.66 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1996, Rs.8.33 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1999, Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2002, Rs.12/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2004 and thereafter, Rs.15/- per sq. mtr from 1.1.2005 onwards as against the amount of Rs.0.52 per sq. mtr. respectively. Being aggrieve and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred these appeals.
4. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Reddy, learned advocate for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the appellant and Mr. A.V. Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined Prajapati, learned advocate for the claimants and Ms. Roshni Patel for respondent No.2.
5. Ms. Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant-ONGC, has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous, unjust and against the settled principle of law. She has submitted that the jurisdiction of Reference Court under Section 35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act is limited to determining questions of sufficiently of compensation and that too only in case of a difference between the Collector and persons interested that arose at the relevant point of time. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the reference court has no power to consider the compensation beyond the period of three years. She has submitted that the reference court has committed serious error while allowing all the reference cases. She has submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing reference cases. She has submitted that the original award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21.3.1983 whereas and the reference cases was filed Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined after almost 18 years i.e. on 15.10.2001 and therefore it was time barred and the said cases are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. With regard to limitation, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Sankarji Hemaji & Anr. reported in 2008 2 GLR 1226. She has submitted that even the reference court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of three years, when the acquisition is of temporary usage of the land, under Section 35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. She has submitted that without considering the facts of the case, the reference court has passed the impugned judgment and award in favour of the opponent original claimants. She has also submitted that even the reference Court has also exceeded jurisdiction while awarding interest beyond a period of three years, because when the Court has no power to award the compensation beyond period of three years, there is no question of awarding interest, as it was awarded by the reference court in the present case. Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined 5.1 Ms. Reddy, learned advocate for the appellant referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court dated 15.6.2015 passed in First Appeal No.4854 of 2008, decision dated 20.1.2025 passed in First Appeal No. 887 of 2007 and allied group of appeals, decision dated 12.202024 passed in First Appeal No. 1037 of 2009 and the decision dated 16.6.2005 in First Appeal No. 5634 of 2008 and urges that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court may be quashed and set aside.
5.2 Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the respondent No.2 has supported the arguments of Ms. Reddy, learned advocate for the appellant.
5.3 As against that Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the claimants is unable to respond this legal submission advanced by learned advocate for the appellant, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the above referred decisions and therefore, he urges before the Court that appropriate order may be passed. Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined
6. I have gone through the record of the appeals and relevant documents. I have also examined the record and proceedings of the appeal and the material placed on record.
7. It appears that present appeals came to be admitted vide order dated 15.2.2007 passed by coordinate bench of this Court and conditional interim relief was grated by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 15.2.2007 passed in Civil Application Nos. 2500 to 2507 of 2007.
8. While considering the contention with regard to delay, it is appropriate to refer the observations made by this Court in the case of O.N.G.C. (supra) which reads as under:-
"(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) - Sec. 35(3)-
Limitation Act, 1963 (XXXVI of 1963) - Art.137 - Lands acquired in 1980-Applications fro reference made in 2001- Held, reference applications were not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. (C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) - Sec. 35- Scope of power of reference Court is confined to determine adequacy of compensation / rent - Reference Court gave findings holding that acquisition proceedings were null and void, that possession of acquiring body Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined (O.N.G.C.) was illegal and unauthorized, etc. - Findings and observations, held, were beyond the jurisdiction the reference Court - Observation made that the Judge of the reference Court had "tried to show his own knowledge without proper application of mind to the issue"
25.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 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 Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined 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 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."
9. In the above referred observations, Article 137 of the Limitation Act is very well discussed by this Court. Even in the decision of this Court dated 15.6.2015 passed in First Appeal No.4854 of 2008 and yet another decision Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined of this dated 12.8.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 3865 of 2008, the said issue is well discussed.
10. Considering the above referred decisions of this Court vis as vis it is evident from the present record that the reference court, without considering the issue of delay has passed the impugned judgment and award in favour of the opponent original claimants. Even otherwise as stated above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 35 of the Act as back as in the year 1983 determining the compensation, which was never objected by the original land owners-interested persons and the same came to be accepted without raising any objection. The contention on behalf of original claimants that under Subsection (3) of Section 35 of the Act, no time limit is prescribed and as it is a 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 before the District Court are within a period of limitation and not barred by the delay and laches, would come into play Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined when there is no limit prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and within three years from the date of cause of action the application could have been made. The said Section 35(3) reads as under:-
"35. Temporary occupation of waste or arable land. Procedure when difference as to compensation exists (1)XXXXXXXXX (2)XXXXXXXXX (3) In case the Collector and the persons interested differ as to the sufficiency of the compensation or apportionment thereof, the Collector shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court."
11. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the reference Court committed serious error in entertaining reference almost after delay of 18 years from the date of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The reference was not maintenance beyond a period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Even otherwise, looking to the scheme of the Act in absence of any power being conferred upon reference Court, delay cannot be condoned by the reference Court.
12. In view of settled legal position the reference court Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined committed serious error or law and on facts both while determining the reference cases.
13. For the foregoing reasons present appeals are allowed. The judgment and award dated 22.09.2005 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.5789 of 2003 to 5796 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside.
14. So far as the direction issued with regard to the interest is concerned, as it is not permanent acquisition but it was temporary acquisition and therefore the interest cannot be awarded under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, as if it is a regular acquisition. Therefore, the direction issued qua interest also deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.
15. Interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 15.2.2007 passed in Civil Application Nos. 2500 to 2507 of 2007 stands vacated forthwith. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025 undefined forthwith. The amount, if any, lying with the Reference Court shall be returned to the appellant corporation along with accrued interest thereon, after due verification within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 22:08:03 IST 2025