Gujarat High Court
Deputy General Manager Oil Natural Gas ... vs Vithhalbhai Umeddas Through Poa ... on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 24/04/2026
Pronounced On : 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1139 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1140 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1141 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1142 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1144 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1145 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1147 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER OIL NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
Versus
VITHHALBHAI UMEDDAS THROUGH POA RAMANBHAI KANTILAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PINANK RAIYANI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker appearing for the Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined ONGC since did not agree to dispose of the captioned First Appeals in view of circular No.PRC/Lok Adalat/102013/1793/GH issued by the State of Gujarat dated 25.10.2016 and insisted for the reasoned order, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, present First Appeals are taken up for final disposal today.
2. In a temporary acquisition, the learned Reference Court at Kalol in group of LAR Nos.260 of 2012 to 264 of 2012 (Original LAR Nos.607/2000 to 611/2000) keeping the lead matter being LAR No.260 of 2012, passed the judgment and award dated 30.6.2019 and ordered to pay compensation of Rs.18.15 per sq mtr per annum to the claimants from the date of taking possession for the period of three years as an additional compensation over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
3. The ONGC valued the appeals for jurisdiction and Court fee purpose as per following break up.
First Appeal Nos.1139 to 1142 of 2020 (Village: Dingucha) FA LAR Measurem Award Award Addl. Addl.
Nos. Nos. ent of by SLAO by Ref. Commpe Commpe
acquired (in Rs./ Court nsation nsation
land (in sq sq mtr) (in Rs./ (1 yr) (3 yr)
mtr) sq mtr) (Rs.18.15
x area sq
mtr)
1139/ 261/12 1380 18.15/- 25,047/- 75,141/-
20 (Addl.
1140/ 260/12 1080 1.65/- Compen 19,602/- 58,806/-
sation)
20
1141/ 263/12 5510 1,00,006. 3,00,019.
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
20 5/- 5/-
1142/ 262/12 2125 38,568.7 1,15,706.
20 5/- 25/-
First Appeal Nos.1144, 1145 & 1147 of 2020 (Village: Saij) FA LAR Measurem Award Award Addl. Addl.
Nos. Nos.
ent of by SLAO by Ref. Commpe Commpe
acquired (in Rs./ Court nsation nsation
land (in sq sq mtr) (in Rs./ (1 yr) (3 yr)
mtr) sq mtr) (Rs.18.15
x area sq
mtr)
1144/ 292/12 846 12.70/- 10,744.2/ 32,232.6/
20 (Addl. - -
1145/ 295/12 8856 0.80/- Compen 1,12,471. 3,37,413.
sation) 20 2/- 6/-
1147/ 293/12 3542 44,983.4/ 1,34,950.
20 - 2/-
4. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the appeals are valued less than Rs.5 lakh for both the purposes i.e. for jurisdiction and for Court fee.
5. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
First Appeal Nos.1139/2020 to 1142/2020 5.1 The lands of the claimants situated at village Dingucha, Tal: Kalol, Dist: Gandhinagar came to be temporarily acquired by the appellant - ONGC for the purpose of drilling PLAG.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 23.7.1997 awarded Rs.1.65/- per sq mtr as rental compensation for the temporarily acquired lands. The claimants preferred reference under section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court, who by impugned common judgment and award, partly allowed the reference of the original claimants and granted additional amount of compensation of Rs. 18.15/- per sq.mtr per annum from the date of taking possession for the period of three years over and above the rental compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant is also directed to pay interest on additional rental compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession till realization. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the appellant ONGC has preferred the present appeals.
First Appeal Nos.1144/2020, 1145/2020 & 1147/2020 5.2 The lands of the claimants situated at village Saij, Tal:
Kalol, Dist: Gandhinagar came to be temporarily acquired by the appellant - ONGC for the purpose of drilling PLAG. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated 28.4.1988 awarded Rs.0.80/- per sq mtr as rental compensation for the temporarily acquired lands. The claimants preferred reference under section 18 of the Act before the learned Reference Court, who by impugned common judgment and award, partly allowed the reference of the original claimants and granted additional amount of compensation of Rs. 12.70/- per sq.mtr per annum from the date of taking possession for the period of three years over Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined and above the rental compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant is also directed to pay interest on additional rental compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession till realization. Feeling aggrieved by the award, the appellant ONGC has preferred the present appeals.
6. To assail impugned judgment and award, learned advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker makes two fold submissions. Firstly, she would submit that enhancement of compensation to Rs.12.70 per sq mtr in one group of matter and to Rs.18.15 per sq mtr in another group of matters by the learned Reference Court is in absence of any evidence. She would further submit that the claimants have not produced any exemplar, which is ordinarily made for proving the claims before the learned Reference Court. She would further submit that taking assistance from another award by the learned Reference Court of the adjoining village is an erroneous approach as in the said award, it was a permanent acquisition. She would further submit that the reliance placed upon GR dated 6.7.2015 is completely misconceived. That resolution pertains to grant of government land on lease to the ONGC and has no application to temporary acquisition of private land u/s 35 of the Act. Moreover, such resolution cannot be applied retrospectively as it has prospective effect and in the present case, the acquisition is made for three years commencing from 23.7.1997 and therefore, application of GR by the learned Reference Court to decide the compensation is totally erroneous approach. She would Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined further submit that the learned Reference Court has erroneously relied upon the judgment in First Appeal No. 7315/1995, as the said judgment is in regard to permanent acquisition. She would further submit that temporary acquisition u/s 35 of the Act is governed by the principles of fair rental value and not market price. In any case, both cannot be equated as here the land would return and vest in the claimant after the 3 years but same is not the case with regard to the permanent acquisition, hence the same yardstick cannot be binding upon the temporary acquisition.
7. Lastly, on factual aspects, learned advocate Ms. Thaker would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6425/2014 (arising from FA 5100/2007, concerning the same village Saij) fixed rental compensation at Rs.3.60 per sq mtr and relying upon the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.145 of 2021 and allied matter has also fixed the rental compensation at Rs.3.60 per sq mtr. She would further submit that award of rate of interest @ 9% is also contrary to law. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra v. Maimuma Banu, (2003) 7 SCC 448, learned advocate Ms. Thaker would submit that there is no statutory provision to grant 9% interest and interest would be 6% as available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
8. As far as smallness of the award and not to entertain the appeals on the ground of smallness are concerned, she would submit that temporary acquisition rent is most likely to be less than Rs.5 lakh as the land is temporarily acquired for short Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined period of time and then the land is repossessed and owned by the owner. In that case, the matter is required to be decided as per the Supreme Courts judgment and may not be disposed of on smallness.
9. Continuing with the argument being hypothetical, learned advocate Ms. Thaker would submit that the learned Reference Court decided all the connected references filed by the claimants against ONGC by a common judgment. In that common judgment, some cases are above 5 lakh, while some are below. She would further submit that If one appeal (less than 5 lakh) is disposed of summarily and another (more than 5 lakh) is heard on merits, it will create ambiguity, inconsistency, and multiplicity of judgments. Thus, she would submit that all the First Appeals arising from the same common judgment must be heard and decided together on merits irrespective of the amount whether less than Rs.5 lakh or more than Rs.5 lakh.
10. It is further argued that disposing one matter on smallness and not the other due to higher amount would result in two judgments, it may also result that in the event the appeal (which is valued more than 5 lakh Rs.) is allowed and the amount as sought to be reduced is reduced by relying upon the Supreme Court judgment, then the said amount may be a lesser award in comparison to the other appeal wherein the said another appeal is disposed of only on smallness of amount which would result into a higher amount being awarded in the appeal which is not decided on merits. Hence, it may create ambiguity as well as splitting of the common Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined judgment and award.
11. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker prays to allow all the First Appeals and to quash and set aside impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court.
12. As against aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Pinank Raiyani appearing for the claimants would submit that several First Appeals filed by the ONGC have already been dismissed by this Court, so also by the Coordinate Bench of this Court under the principle of smallness of amount and therefore, present group of First Appeals, wherein learned advocate Ms. Thaker is appearing, cannot be treated differently or distinctly. He would further submit that even otherwise, before the learned Reference Court, the appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. He would further submit that the appellant except filing of written statement has done nothing to discharge the burden. He would further submit that GR dated 6.7.2015 reflects policy decision of the State Government, prescribing that rent for its lands temporarily allotted to ONGC for drilling shall be levied at 15% of the market value of the concerned land. He would further submit that the learned Reference Court has merely adopted this very method while determining fair rental compensation for the claimants, whose lands were compulsorily acquired for a period of three years between 1997 and 1999. He would further submit that it is not an application of circular dated 6.7.2015 retrospectively, but the method, which the State Government has adopted to charge Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined rent from the ONGC for temporary drilling, has been adopted and applied by the learned Reference Court in absence of any other exemplar or any other material keeping in mind the prevailing market price of the time period for which the land in question was temporarily acquired and therefore, no question of application of GR retrospectively arise, thereby the learned Reference Court has rightly applied the method prescribed therein. Therefore, he would submit that submission of learned advocate Ms. Thaker that GR dated 6.7.2015 should not apply retrospectively has no force and does not stand to leg.
13. As far as judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.145 of 2021 and allied matter is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Raiyani would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 3681 of 2026 has stayed the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, that judgment would not apply at this juncture.
14. As far as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shanahi Nathaji Dabhi Vs. Deputy General Manager, ONGC Ltd, CA 6413-6417 of 2014 is concerned, learned advocate Mr. Raiyani would submit that this judgment would not be applied as exemplar, as the acquisition of different village having 15-30 km distance from village Dingucha. He would further submit that except village Saij, which figures in some of the present appeals, none of the other villages forming part of the exemplar are contiguous or comparable. Therefore, in that circumstance, he would submit fixing of Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined compensation at Rs.3.60 per sq mtr as claimed by the appellants is meritless.
15. As far as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maimuma Banu (supra) to award interest at the rate of 6% on rental compensation is concerned, it is submitted that reliance on the aforesaid decision is wholly misplaced. It is the case where the Government took possession of land through private negotiation prior to notifications under Sections 4 and 6, where compensation was paid as "rent" under Government Resolutions, and not under the Act. He would further submit that there were no proceedings under Section 35, and the Hon'ble Apex Court, in those peculiar facts, granted 6% interest as an equitable measure for excess occupation before Section 4 Notification. He would further submit that in the present case, factual aspects are quite different and therefore, the judgment would not be applicable.
16. As far as circular of State Government dated 25.10.2016 is concerned, he would submit that the ONGC falls in the definition of "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the aforesaid circular is equally applied to the ONGC also and the First Appeals may also be dismissed on the ground of smallness.
17. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Raiyani prays to dismiss the First Appeals.
18. Learned advocates for both the sides have also placed on record written arguments, which are taken on record.
Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
19. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, let observe that number of first appeals filed by the ONGC challenging the rental compensation determined by the learned Reference Court were dismissed on the ground of principle of smallness of amount involved in challenge by this Court so also by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The judgment rendered in First Appeal Nos.3997 of 2021 and 1584 of 2022 filed by the ONGC are the exemplar, whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the First Appeals on the ground of principle of smallness of amount. This Court has also dismissed several First Appeals filed by the ONGC on the ground of application of principle of smallness of amount.
20. Learned advocate Ms. Thaker submitted that the ONGC is not governed by the Government notification dated 25.10.2016. However, while saying so, learned advocate Ms. Thaker forgot to notice the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and another, 1975(1) SCC 421, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court examined that whether statutory corporations carrying on business of public importance are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not. Widening the concept of "State", the Hon'ble Apex Court held that those corporations carrying on business of public importance are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court put rider that despite they are falling within the concept of State, their employees Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined would not get protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the status of regulation framed under the ONGC Act, 1959 and under the LIC Act, 1948, held as under:-
"111. The ultimate question which is relevant for our purpose is whether such a corporation is an agency or instrumentality of the government for carrying on a business for the benefit of the public. In other words, the question is, for whose benefit was the corporation carrying on the business - When it is seen from the provisions of that Act that on liquidation of the Corporation, its assets should be divided among the shareholders, namely, the central and State governments and others, if any. the implication is clear that the benefit of the accumulated income would go to the central and State governments. Nobody will deny that an agent has a legal personality different from that of the principal. The fact that the agent is subject to the direction of the principal does not mean that he has no legal personality of his own. Likewise, merely because a corporation has legal personality of its own, it does not follow that the corporation cannot be an agent or instrumentality of the State, if it is subject to control of government in all important matters of policy. No doubt, there might be some distinction between the nature of control exercised by principal over agent and the control exercised by government over public corporation. That, I think is only a distinction in degree. The crux of the matter is that public corporation is a new type of institution which has sprung from the new social and economic functions of government and that it therefore does not neatly fit into old legal categories. Instead of forcing it into them, the latter should be adapted to the needs of changing times and conditions."
21. Vide notification dated 25.10.2016, the State Government has raised valuation of petty claim from Rs.2 lakh Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined to Rs.5 lakh and directed to withdraw all the claim in Lok Adalat case / First Appeal, wherein the amount is Rs.5 lakh or less in Lok Adalat, with the rider that such withdrawal shall not be treated as precedent. I am failed to understand how the ONGC would not be abide by such notification, more particularly, when in many other matters, the ONGC has accepted the notification and allowed to dismiss the appeal on the ground of smallness of amount. Perhaps due to obdurate and intransigent approach, it has been insisted to pass reasoned order in these matters though the amount involved in these First Appeal is less than Rs.5 lakh and the same are required to be dismissed on the ground of smallness of amount as per Government notification dated 25.10.2016. Yet, let examine the merits of the appeals.
22. The first contention raised by learned advocate Ms. Thaker is that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.145 of 2021 and other allied matter determined the temporary rental compensation at Rs.3.60 per sq mtr relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shanahi Nathaji Dabhi (supra). However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.3681 of 2026 has stayed implementation of said judgment. Moreover, the judgment in case of Shanahi Nathaji Dabhi (supra) is in regards to village Pethapur, Shertha and Adalaj etc., whereas in the present matters, the land of village Dingucha is temporarily acquired. The distance of both the lands is 25 - 30 km except village Saij. Therefore, there is no applicability of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as exemplar to determine the temporary Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined rental compensation.
23. As far as judgment of Maimuma Banu (supra) is concerned, it was a case where 6% interest is granted on rent, whereby the land was possessed prior to issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The same would not apply to the facts of the present case.
24. As far as submission of non-application of GR dated 6.7.2015 is concerned, whereby the Government itself charged 15% of the market value as rent for its own land given to the ONGC for drilling purpose is concerned. Learned advocate Mr. Raiyani right pointed out that it is not a question of applying GR dated 6.7.2015, but it is a case of applying method to determine the temporary rental value to award the compensation. The method can be adopted and adoption of such method per se cannot be said that resolution has been applied retrospectively. The learned Reference Court applied the method of charging 15% of the market value of land to determine rental value adopted by the State Government through its resolution dated 6.7.2015 for the land which was given to the ONGC for temporary drilling and found out the market price of the land which was temporarily acquired for the relevant time period and granted 15% thereon as compensation.
25. It is also the case of the ONGC that no exemplar can be applied on the temporary acquisition. According to this Court, the learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the GR dated 6.7.2015 to apply the methodology of application of 15% of Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the market value to determine the temporary compensation for temporary acquisition. There cannot be any different and distinct valuation, if the Government is entitled to get 15% of the market value of the land when the Government itself is giving its land to the ONGC for drilling in line of same methodology. Ordinary person, whose lands are acquired for temporary acquisition for drilling purpose, should also be given 15% of the market valuation of the land of that year in which it has been temporarily acquired. Thus, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. Accordingly, all the First Appeals deserve no consideration and are required to be dismissed.
26. Resultantly, all First Appeals sans merit and stand dismissed accordingly.
27. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith.
28. The learned Reference Court is directed to disburse the amount of compensation deposited by the ONGC after deducting Court fee to the claimants after due verification and identification along with interest and after verifying their right to claim the compensation.
29. Registry to maintain copy of this order in each matter.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 22:52:54 IST 2026