Gujarat High Court
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Prajapati Kanubhai Bababhai on 1 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3198/2011 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3198 of 2011
==========================================================
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
PRAJAPATI KANUBHAI BABABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/05/2026
ORDER
1. The Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Mehsana Project ('the ONGC', for short), the appellant herein, has filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code', for short) against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed in Special Civil Suit No.336 of 2000 by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana whereby the suit of the plaintiff was partly allowed and the ONGC was directed to pay damage of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) to the plaintiff from the date of the filing of the suit till its realisation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff is having agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 75/4,99,91 of Mouje Village:Chalsna and through the said lands ONGC used to dispose of chemical water through its pipeline laid by the Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:40:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3198/2011 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined ONGC. It is the case of the plaintiff that though it is the onus of the ONGC to lay standard pipelines at fixed depth of the lands, it failed to do so and due to leakage of such pipelines at different occasions i.e. on 02.06.1999, 07.06.1999, 03.07.1999, 16.08.1999, 08.09.1999, 12.09.1999, 15.08.1999, 18.08.1999 and on 16.09.1999, the chemical passing through such pipelines spread in the fields. It is also the plaintiff's case that though time and again he informed about leakage, the ONGC neither took concrete steps nor stopped passing such chemicals through the pipelines, which ultimately causes damages to his standing crops and the fertility of the lands. It is also the case of the plaintiff that since the chemical water and oil entered deep into the agricultural field upto 5 ft of his lands admeasuring 29.73 Gunthas, he was compelled to get the field dug out replacing the soil being affected with oil and chemical water with the new soil. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit for compensation towards such damage of the crops and fertility of the lands for Rs.6,73,645/-.
4. Being summoned, defendant ONGC appeared and filed written statement vide Exh.16 along with reply at Exh.28 to draft amendment filed by the plaintiff which was granted by the trial Court.
5. After permitting the parties to lead evidence, the trial Court framed issues vide Exh.31 and after hearing the parties the trial Court partly decreed the suit and passed order, as stated above.
6. Heard learned counsel Mr.Ajay Mehta appearing for the appellant - ONGC and learned advocate Mr.A.V.Prajapati for Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:40:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3198/2011 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined the respondent - plaintiff.
7. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant - ONGC mainly referred to the cross-examination of the plaintiff and submitted that even in absence of any documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff to repair the soil which was spoiled by leakage of the oil, the ONGC, on its own, granted Rs.7937, Rs.14570/- , Rs.3200/-, Rs.1809/-, Rs.4568/-, Rs.2088/-, Rs.7399/ and Rs.2226/-, at different interval time to meet with the damage sustained by the plaintiff. He would submit that while passing the decree, the learned trial Court did not consider various payments made by the ONGC in favour of the plaintiff. He would further submit that even the Court Commissioner Rojkam took place two months prior to filing of the suit whereas the oil from ONGC pipeline leaked much prior thereto and therefore Court Commissioner Rojkam would not help the plaintiff to assess the actual damage. He would submit that plaintiff should be compensated only for the purpose of damage occurred to the soil and removal the soil and to refill the same soil in the land. He would submit that even as per the plaintiff the soil upto 4-5 ft deep is spoiled due to oil leakage. Therefore, plaintiff at the most was required to remove that soil and refill the new soil. Apart from that, plaintiff was not required to spend anything more. He would submit that, in view of the above, learned trial Court has committed serious error and the compensation which was required to be granted is already paid to the plaintiff at different interval of time period. In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel Mr.Mehta submit to allow this appeal.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:40:46 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3198/2011 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
8. In contrast, learned counsel Mr.Prajapati appearing for the original plaintiff submitted that not only soil but entire land was spoiled due to oil leakage. The plaintiff, by leading cogent evidence, has proved that fertility of land is adversely affected because of oil leakage and, therefore, learned trial Court having considered that aspect rightly compensated the plaintiff by partly decreeing the suit. Making above submissions, learned counsel Mr.Prajapati would submit to dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having considered records and proceedings, at the outset, it is to be noted that plaintiff has filed the suit for damage of Rs.6,73,645/- for recovery of damage with interest. As against the said claim, the learned trial Court granted Rs.2,75,000/- with 9% interest from the date of suit till realisation.
10. The plaintiff deposed along with the documentary evidence that to bring that fertility he has to bring country- made fertilizer and also chemical fertilizer and has to dig the entire land to remove the soil damaged by leakage of the oil. Learned trial Court framed as many as nine issues at Exh.31 to decide the case of the plaintiff, and answered the same as under:
"(1) Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant O.N.G.C. failed to maintain pipeline installed at the internal part of the lands of the plaintiff in proper and reasonable condition? [In affirmative] (2) Whether plaintiff proves that there was continues leakage as alleged in the Plaint in the pipeline and hence the agricultural land of the plaintiff has been damaged?
[In affirmative ] Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:40:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3198/2011 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined (3) Whether plaintiff proves that the plaintiff has to suffer damages due to want of proper care and caution by the officials of the defendant? [In affirmative] (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the compensation under different heads as stated in Plaint Para-4 upto extend of Rs.7,60,949/-? [In partly affirmative] (5) Whether defendant proves that the leakage in pipeline might have been caused due to the natural conditions and whether of the area? [ In negative ] (6) Whether defendant proves that the damage might have been due to the tempering with the pipeline by the plaintiff himself or other persons as stated in the written statement? [ In negative ] (7) Whether defendant proves that defendant corporation has paid amount of compensation by way grace to the plaintiff as whether the in Plaint Para-7 of the written statement? [ In negative ] (8) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the additional compensation? If yes, upto what extend? [In affirmative] (9) What order and decree? [As per final order]
11. The plaintiff's evidence remained unchallenge as the defendant had not deposed before the Court. The Court Commissioner Panchnama at Exh.74 is produced and considering these factual aspects, learned trial Court, on lumpsum assumption, granted compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-.
12. The only point which appeals this Court in the argument that learned trial Court while granting compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- did not consider the compensation already granted by the ONGC to the plaintiff at different interval of time. What has been granted to the plaintiff by defendant ONGC has been discussed hereinabove. The plaintiff has Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:40:46 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3198/2011 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined admitted in his deposition.
13. In view of the above, according to this Court, learned trial Court committed error in quantifying damage at Rs.2,75,000/- . According to this Court, it should be worked at Rs.2,50,000/- considering the undisputed fact that on previous point of time, some amount of compensation has already been paid to the plaintiff by the ONGC defendant towards the compensation.
14. In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of the trial Court dated 30.11.2010 passed in Special Civil Suit No.336 of 2000 is modified to the extent that plaintiff is entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) along with 9% interest from the date of the suit till its realisation. The excess amount of Rs.25,000/- along with 9% interest and the accrued interest shall be paid back to the ONGC and remaining amount shall be released in favour of the plaintiff, after due verification. Decree to be drawn accordingly. Records and Proceedings is ordered to be sent back to the concerned trial Court.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 05:40:46 IST 2026