Subrata Hait vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1936 Cal

Form No. J(2).
Item No.15

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
                  CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                                APPELLATE SIDE


                    HEARD ON: 16.03.2023 & 23.03.2023

                            DELIVERED ON:.23.03.2023

                                    CORAM:

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

                              W.P.A. 19895 of 2021

                                  Subrata Hait

                                    VERSUS

                   Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.


Appearance:-

Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Indranil Nandi
Mr. Deba Prasad Samanta
Mr. Sayak Konar                 ........for the petitioner


Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sharmistha Ghosh
Mr. Victor Chatterjee
Mr. Amit Ghosh                      ....for the Indian Oil Corporation
                                                  Ltd.

                                  JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel for the writ

petitioner and Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel representing

the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus

directing the respondents to forthwith pay the entire

compensation in respect of the loss and damage suffered by the

petitioner during the laying of the pipelines of the

respondent no. 1 in terms of the provisions of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962 (for short 'the 1962 Act).

3. In course of hearing, Mr. Mitra drew the attention of the

Court to the letter dated February 17, 2022, which was

addressed to the competent authority, West Bengal, Indian Oil

Corporation being the 4th respondent herein. Mr. Mitra submits

that since the issue regarding payment of compensation in

terms of the 1962 Act is now pending for consideration before

the competent authority, West Bengal, this Court, instead of

entering into the merits of the claims and counter claims of

the respective parties, may direct the competent authority to

decide the prayer for payment of compensation contained in the

letter dated February 17, 2022 in accordance with law.

4. Mr. Mitra further submits that only a portion out of the

chunk of plots has been used by the Indian Oil Corporation for

the purpose of laying the pipelines but the Indian Oil

Corporation is not allowing the petitioner to use the said

property only on the ground that the pipelines have been drawn

under the said property.

5. Mr. Dhar, learned senior counsel representing the Indian

Oil Corporation however, does not oppose the prayer of Mr.

Mitra to the effect that a direction may be passed upon the

competent authority for deciding the prayer for payment of

compensation to the petitioner under the provisions of the

1962 Act. He however, disputes the submission of the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner that the Indian Oil

Corporation is not allowing the petitioner to use the property

in question on the ground that the pipelines have been laid

under the said property. He however, submits that the

petitioner cannot be allowed to do any act, which might cause

any damage to the pipelines that have been laid.

6. Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel submits that some

barriers/embankment have been put on the property which are

causing obstruction to the petitioner in enjoyment of the

property in question. Mr.Dhar, learned senior counsel

representing the Indian Oil Corporation denies such fact and

submits that Indian Oil Corporation has not put any

barrier/embankment so as to cause any obstruction but the

petitioner should not be permitted to indulge into any

activity in the garb of removal of the barriers/embankment

that might cause damage to the pipelines.

7. These disputed factual issues cannot be decided in this

writ petition. The petitioner will be at liberty to approach

the appropriate authority in case the petitioner feels any

inconvenience in the matter of user and enjoyment of the

property in question.

8. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 42,12,244/-

(Rupees Forty Two Lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Forty Four)

has been paid by the Indian Oil Corporation to the petitioner

on account of compensation but the present grievance of the

petitioner is with regard to enhancement of compensation and

payment of any further sums in terms of the provisions of the

1962 Act.

9. Admittedly, the pipelines have been laid using a portion

of the large chunk of the property of the petitioner. Though

the petitioner has a right to use and enjoy the said property

as a lessee thereof, he should not be permitted to cause any

damage or to undertake any act or activity, which is

restricted under the provisions of the 1962 Act. In view

thereof, this writ petition is disposed of by passing the

following orders:

(i) The competent authority, being the 4 th respondent to

the writ petition is directed to consider the prayer of the

petitioner contained in the letter dated February 17, 2022 as

expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of

eight weeks from the date of communication of this order upon

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his

authorised representative and to dispose of the same by

passing a reasoned order. It is needless to mention that such

reasoned order is to be communicated to the petitioner within

a period of one week from the date of passing of the said

order.

(ii) The petitioner shall be entitled to use the property

as specifically mentioned in the Panchnama dated May 22, 2020

in the manner permitted under the provisions of the 1962 Act.

10. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance

of all legal formalities.

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

Pallab, AR(Ct.)