Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra Thru Gp High ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4497 Bom

                                                                                      wp-2969-19.doc

BDP-SPS




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 OF 2019


          Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited                  ...Petitioner.

                            V/s

          State of Maharashtra and Ors.                                     ...Respondents.

          ----
          Mr. Javed Hussein a/w Mr. Sakib Ghufran i/b Hussein & Co. for the
          Petitioner.

          Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 8.

          Mr. Dhananjayrao D. Rananaware for Respondent No.2.
          -----
                                    CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                     DATE:       March 11, 2021
          P.C.:-

          1]        Grant of enhanced compensation by the learned District Judge-

1, Vaduj in exercise of powers under sub-section (5) of Section 10 of

the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in

Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the

Act") is a subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.

2] Petitioner a Corporation within the meaning of Section 2(b)(i)

of the Act is carrying on business of petroleum as reflected under the

wp-2969-19.doc

provisions of the Act. The competent authority as defined under sub-

clause (a) of Section 2, in exercise of powers under Section 10, on

11/9/2006 in the matter of determination of compensation for fruit

bearing trees, damage caused to the land in relation to execution of

work of laying petroleum pipeline and vide order dated 23/3/2006 in

exercise of powers under Section 10 sub-section (4) has awarded

compensation of ₹ 2,06,484/-.

3] Respondents/land owners feeling aggrieved preferred

Application (Appeal) No.233 of 2006 by which compensation came to

be enhanced to ₹ 6,34,883/- by the learned District Judge. As far as

already paid compensation of ₹ 1,19,320/- is concerned, same was

directed to be adjusted from the final award of enhanced

compensation. As such this Petition.

4]     Heard respective Counsels at length.



5]     Contention of the Petitioner is, enhanced compensation granted

by the District Judge is without looking into oral and documentary

evidence and prevailing market rate of the agriculture produce. The

learned Counsel would urge that the awards passed by the competent

wp-2969-19.doc

authority are as per rules and valuation carried out based on the

appreciation of evidence and that being so, according to him, order

impugned is liable to be set aside. Further contention is, evidence of

expert witness ought not to have been accepted by the Court below,

particularly when in cross-examination the said witness did not

withstand to what has been stated in examination-in-chief. As such,

he has prayed for quashing of enhanced compensation.

6] Per contra, learned Counsel for land owners while taking me

through orders passed by the competent authority and evidence,

would urge that order of enhanced compensation is very much

justified.

7]     Considered rival submissions.



8]     It is required to be noted that under the provisions of Section 10

sub-section (6), the decision given by the learned District Judge which

is impugned herein is final and that being so, writ petition is

maintainable. After declaration of acquisition of right of user under

Section 10, Section 9 puts an embargo on the right of the Respondents

on use of the land. After the above notification the land which is used

wp-2969-19.doc

for laying petroleum pipeline cannot be used for construction of

building or any other structure; construct or excavate any tank, well,

reservoir or dam; or plant any tree, on that land. As such, it can be

inferred that land which is used by the Petitioner for laying down

pipeline has very restricted use.

9] While determining compensation under Section 10, learned

District Judge or competent authority is required to have regard to the

damage or loss sustained by the persons interested, like Respondents

in this case, by reason of removal of trees or standing crops while

giving effect to the provisions of Sections 4, 7, and 8 of the Act,

temporary severance of the land under which pipeline has been laid

and injury and damage to any other property including immovable.

10] In support of the plea for enhanced compensation, Respondent

has examined his son viz Vilas Vishnu Shinde in whose examination-

in-chief, a detailed description of the property was brought on record,

including that of standing crops, number of trees, its age, nature of

damage suffered and monetary loss. Paragraphs 4, 8 of the said

deposition are worth referring to.

wp-2969-19.doc

11] In the lengthy cross-examination of the said witness, the

Petitioner was unable to demolish his case for entitlement of

enhanced compensation. The expert witness retired Government

Agricultural Officer viz. Shankar Mane has deposed as regards the loss

suffered. The said expert witness was also subjected to detailed cross-

examination. He has deposed about average life of drum-stick trees

and other issues in cross-examination. He has proved the

panchanama drawn by him during his visit to the spot i.e. land on

8/7/2012. He has deposed about damage caused to the trees and

financial loss suffered.

12] After analysis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned District

Judge has awarded enhanced compensation as under:-

         Compensation determined                 Amount
         1] Towards land                        ₹ 9,835/-
         2] Towards jawar crop                  ₹ 5,800/-
         3] Towards non-fruit bearing trees
         (Suru,  Nilgiri,   Babhul     and ₹ 2,100/-
         Tembhurni)
         4] Towards two Guaua Trees             ₹ 4,830/-
         5] Towards          twenty-six   Mango ₹ 5,85,000/-
         Trees
         6] Towards four Awala Trees            ₹ 31,200/-
         7] Towards one Coconut Tree            ₹ 145/-
         8] Towards three Jamun Trees           ₹ 525/-
         9] Towards two Almond Trees            ₹ 278/-







                                                                   wp-2969-19.doc


13]     As far as award of compensation under each head as referred to

above is concerned, learned District Judge has considered overall oral

and documentary evidence brought on record and by a reasoned order

awarded enhanced compensation.

14] The learned District Judge while granting enhancement has

appreciated evidence brought before him by the claimant and expert

witness. Fact remains that the competent authority granted

compensation towards damages to fruit bearing, non-fruit bearing

trees and crops, which justifies the claim of Respondent/land owner

that there exists such trees and crops. The appellate Court had regard

to the same and had revalued the damages suffered and enhanced the

compensation based on relevant material. It is to be noted that the

land that has been utilized by the Petitioner cannot be put to use by

the Respondent/land owner for the purposes as are enumerated

under Section 9 of the Act. As such to some extent there is permanent

loss of use of the land. This Court in extraordinary jurisdiction has to

see whether appellate court was within its jurisdiction to grant

enhancement and from the judgment and material on record, the

Court below was justified in granting such enhancement.

wp-2969-19.doc

15] As far as grant of enhanced compensation is concerned, in extra

ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227, this court need

not to re-appreciate the entire evidence but is only required to restrict

itself to find out whether court below in exercise of powers under

Section 10 has committed any error of law has taken any perverse

view in awarding enhanced compensation. As observed hereinabove,

I have perused the award given by the competent authority, evidence

of the witness of the claimant/land owner and expert witness. The

learned District Judge while enhancing compensation has given

sufficient convincing reasons and thereby granted enhancement.

16] Considering the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, I hardly

see any illegality which warrants interference in the order impugned

passed by the learned District Judge under Section 10 of the Act. That

being so, no case for interference is made out. Petition as such fails

and same stands dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )