Gauhati High Court
Rnt Plantation Limited (Owner- ... vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 12 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010075722019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/317/2021
RNT PLANTATION LIMITED (OWNER- LUKWAH TEA ESTATE)
A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1 AND 2 OLD COURT HOUSE
CORNER KOLKATA-1 OWNING LUKWAH TEA ESTATE AT P.O.- LUKWAH
DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM.
VERSUS
1: THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
DULY REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS NORTH BLOCK
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI.
2:OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
EASTERN REGION ASSAM ASSET P.O. NAZIRA DIST.- SIVSAGAR
ASSAM DULY REP. BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUM-ASSET MANAGER.
3:THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ASSAM RENEWAL PROJECT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SIVSAGAR ASSAM.
4:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER- THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR
ASSAM.
Advocate for : MR. S K KEJRIWAL
MRS. S KEJRIWAL
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
Page No.# 2/4
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 12-11-2021
Heard Mrs. S. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Also heard
Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2.
This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the
judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.437/2012 as well as the subsequent judgment and order dated
12.02.2019 passed in Review Petition No.93/2018.
The appellant is a company and owner of Lukwah Tea Estate in
Sivasagar District. Under the provisions of the Petroleum And Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, a portion of the
land of the appellant measuring 433 Bighas was acquired for user by a
Notification issued in the year 2009. The amount of compensation was also
determined by the competent authority by its order dated 11.11.2010. The
appellant challenged the order of the competent authority dated 11.11.2010
before the concerned District Judge by filing an appeal under Section 10(2)
of the Act. The matter is still pending before the learned District Judge,
Sivasagar. Meanwhile, another Notification was issued for acquisition of right
of user 85 bighas of land of the Tea Estate. However, even before the
amount of compensation could be determined, the appellant approached
this Court with the grievance that delay is being caused by the competent
authority in determining the compensation. The admitted position is that
during the pendency of the case, compensation was determined. The case
of the appellant/writ petitioner then was that there was no application of
Page No.# 3/4
mind in determining the compensation and the appellant has been given the
same compensation as given on the earlier occasion whereas the fact
remains that the two Notifications are different, circumstances are different
and, therefore, compensation should also be different.
The learned Single Judge, however, was of the view that since the
issue as regarding compensation in the earlier matter was already pending
before the appellate authority, it would not be appropriate to pre-judge the
issue and decide what compensation is proper. Accordingly, the learned
Single Judge refused to interfere in the matter. The review petition filed by
the appellant/writ petitioner was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant Ms. S. Kejriwal would argue that
an observation has come in the order of the learned Single Judge dated
10.05.2018 that "Needless to say, decision rendered in the pending appeal
in respect of the 433 Bighas of land, the same shall apply to the 85 Bighas
of land as well". This observation of the learned Single Judge may be
construed as pre-judging the issue and therefore, the appellate Court will
now not give compensation which is different from the compensation which
it will award as per the earlier Notification where the right to use has been
acquired. To this extent, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for
the appellant.
We dispose of this writ appeal directing that in case an appeal is
filed, the appellate Court will not be influenced by the aforesaid observation
of the learned Single Judge and will make an independent determination as
to the compensation in accordance with law taking into consideration all
relevant facts and materials. It is made clear that not for a moment we are
saying that the two compensations cannot be the same, but it is for the
Page No.# 4/4
appellate Court to decide and not for this Court as the entire records and
materials are not before this Court.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
