Rnt Plantations Limited vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3239 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010003892012




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1222/2012

            RNT PLANTATIONS 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. SIVSAGAR, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            OIL and NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. and ORS
            A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING EASTERN REGION, ASSAM
            ASSET, P.O. NAZIRA, DIST. SIVSAGAR, ASSAM , DULY REPRESENTED BY
            THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUM- ASSET MANAGER.

            2:THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM
             DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
            ASSAM RENEWAL PROJECT
             OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             SIVSAGAR
            ASSAM.

            3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             SIVSAGAR
            ASSAM


Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRSS KEJRIWAL

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.G N SAHEWALLA

Page No.# 2/7

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

Date of hearing : 22.08.2023.

Date of judgment :       22.08.2023.


                               JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

Heard Mr. S. K. Kejriwal, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also

heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Anix Singh, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned senior

counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

2. This is the second time that the writ petitioner had to approach this Court by

filing this writ petition seeking more or less similar nature of relief. The facts of the case

leading to the filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are to the effect that the writ

petitioner is a company carrying on business inter-alia of plantation, manufacturing

and sale of tea. The petitioner company is the owner of Lukwah Tea Estate situated in

the district of Sivasagar. As per the case projected in the writ petition, several plots of

land falling under the Lukwah Tea Estate has been used either temporarily or

permanently by the respondent No.1 for the purpose of activities such as drilling for

exploration of oil and gas and also for laying down pipelines. In the above process,

land measuring 114 Bighas 1 Katha and 19 Lechas belonging to the Lukwah Tea

Estate has been utilised by the respondent No.1 in various form. The petitioner has

been paid rental and crop compensation for the land. However, no compensation Page No.# 3/7

as required under Section 10(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 as well as compensation in terms of the provisions of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been paid to the petitioner till date. Hence, this

writ petition.

3. The petitioner company had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)

No.4117/2011 inter-alia praying for a direction upon the respondents to pay

compensation to the petitioner in respect of the 114 bighas of land by assessing the

compensation for the damage caused to the land in addition to other reliefs prayed

for in the said writ petition. Since the petitioner has confined its grievance only to the

question of payment of compensation for the 114 bighas of land allegedly used by

the ONGC i.e. the respondent No.1, it would not be necessary for this Court to go into

the other aspect of the matter agitated in WP(C) No.4117/2011.

4. By the judgment and order dated 05.09.2011 the learned Single Judge had

disposed of the aforesaid writ petition wherein the relief prayed for by the petitioner

company pertaining to the 114 bighas of land was dealt with in paragraph 6 sub-

para (i), which is reproduced herein below :-

"i) The competent authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar, shall make an enquiry as to whether the petitioner had been paid the amount of compensation in respect of 114-bigha of land, which was earlier acquired under the provisions of the Act. In such enquiry the writ petitioner as well as the respondent authorities shall produce the necessary papers enabling the competent authority to complete such enquiry and pass necessary order. In case any amount is found to be due and payable to the petitioner the same shall be paid by the ONGC by depositing the same with the competent authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar. The said exercise is directed to Page No.# 4/7

be completed within a period of two months from today."

5. In terms of the directions contained in the order dated 05.09.2011, the

respondent No.3 i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar had prepared a

report which was forwarded to the respondent No.1 as well as the writ petitioner by

the letter dated 31.12.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar. The

grievance of the petitioner is that although the enquiry report forwarded on

31.12.2011 clearly indicates that the petitioner was entitled to receive compensation,

no action has been taken by the respondent No.1 for payment of compensation.

Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. By referring to the enquiry report prepared in terms of the order dated

05.09.2011 passed by this Court, Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the report clearly indicates that with regard to Item Nos.12, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37,

38 and 39 only the rental and crops compensation have been paid to the writ

petitioner but no compensation on the market value of the land as provided under

Section 10(4) of the Act of 1962 has either been assessed or paid to the petitioner till

today. Mr. Kejriwal further submits that with regard to Item Nos. 15A and 23 of the

enquiry report, since the land was acquired on permanent basis, hence, the

petitioner was entitled to receive compensation under the provisions of the Act of

1894 which has also not been done till today. Contending that since no assessment

has been made nor has award been passed under the Act of 1894, hence, in view of

the provision of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, assessment of Page No.# 5/7

compensation payable in respect of the above land, according to Mr. Kejriwal,

would now have to be made as per the provisions of the Act of 2013. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that a direction be issued by this

Court to the respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of the District (now re-

designated as District Commissioner) to carry out the above action and complete

the necessary formalities by making assessment of the amount of compensation

receivable by the petitioner. A direction be also issued to the respondent No.1 to

release the amount of compensation without further delay as soon as the assessment

is made by the respondent No.2.

7. Responding to the above argument, Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for

the respondent No.1 submits that since the usage of the land has been going on

since past 4/5 decades and in bits and pieces, it would be wrong to say that the

petitioner has not received any compensation. The learned senior counsel for the

respondent No.1 has, however, fairly submitted that if any amount of compensation is

found due and payable to the petitioner under the law, his client would not shy away

from paying such compensation provided, proper assessment of the same is made

by the competent authority by following the due procedure as laid down by law.

8. Similar is the stand of Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

9. After going through the materials available on record, I find that the enquiry

report prepared in terms of the order dated 05.09.2011 elaborately deals with the

claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation. In the enquiry report, the

compensation payable to the petitioner for each and every parcel of land Page No.# 6/7

corresponding to the different items have been reflected. However, unfortunately,

the enquiry report does not reflect the amount of compensation that would be

receivable by the petitioner on a proper assessment of the market value of the land.

If that be so, it is clear that the enquiry report forwarded on 31.12.2011 did not

complete the process necessary for release of the amount of compensation payable

to the petitioner.

10. After a careful reading of the provisions of Section 10(4) of the Act of 1962 as

well as the relevant provisions of the Act of 2013, this Court is left with no manner of

hesitation that before any direction can be issued by any authority for release of

amount of compensation, proper assessment of the land and the compensation

payable in respect thereof would have to be made by the competent authority,

which in the present case, is the respondent No.2.

11. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the claims and counter-claims of

the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction upon the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 to make assessment of the amount of compensation payable to the

petitioner by following the prescribed procedure laid down in the Act of 1962 in so far

as the claim for payment of 10% market value of the land is concerned. In so far as

the amount of compensation claimed with regard to Item Nos.15A and 23 of the

enquiry report is concerned, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall examine as to whether

the aforesaid claim is required to be assessed under the provisions of the Act of 2013

and if satisfied in that regard, may proceed to make assessment of the amount of

compensation. Facilitating the above, the writ petitioner as well as the respondent

No.1 may present relevant documents and other records before the respondent No.2 Page No.# 7/7

in support of their respective claims, within three months from today. The respondent

Nos.2 and 3 to complete the process of assessing the amount of compensation,

prepare a report and thereafter, proceed to pass an award in respect thereof. The

aforesaid exercise be completed within an outer limit of six months from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

T U Choudhury/Sr.PS

Comparing Assistant