Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The Chairman And Managing Director And 4 ... on 16 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010278462024
2025:GAU-AS:8056-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/196/2025
M/S. SHAMSHUN TEA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD.
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 33/1, N.S ROAD, 444, MARSHALL HOUSE,
KOLKATA-700001, GARDEN OFFICE P/O. DEMOW, DIST. DIBRUGARH-
785662.
REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR SRI VINOD AGARWAL, S/O. LT. KISHAN
LAL AGARWAL, R/O. FLAT NO. 5D AND 5E, LANSDOWNE HEIGHTS, 6
SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020.
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 4 ORS
OIL INDIA LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE OIL INDIA LIMITED, PLOT NO.
19, NEAR FILM CITY, SECTOR 16A, NOIDA-201301.
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER LAND (HOD) LAND DEPARTMENT
OIL INDIA LIMITED DULIAJAN-786602 ASSAM.
3:THE SENIOR MANAGER LAND DEPARTMENT
OIL INDIA LIMITED DULIAJAN-786003 ASSAM.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH-786003 ASSAM.
5:LUCILLE LAILA RAHMAN
W/O. MR. SHAUKAT MD. RAHMAN
PROPRIETOR OF ESSEL BIO RESEARCH PLANTATION
R/O. NIRMALI GAON P/O. RATANPUR
DIBRUGARH TOWN DIST. DIBRUGARH-786003 ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M HAZARIKA, MR D KHAN,MS. S NEWAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, OIL,
Page No.# 2/7
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR(ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 16.06.2025
Date of Judgment: 16.06.2025
Judgment & Order(ORAL)
[N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.]
Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Sanjana
Newar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr.
K. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Oil India Ltd., appearing on behalf of
respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
2. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed today; notice
upon respondent No. 5, is deemed to be not necessary.
3. The appellant, herein, has instituted the present intra-court appeal
assailing the order, dated 25.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(c)3654/2024, dismissing the same, granting liberty to the appellant to
approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of its
grievances.
4. The issue involved in the present proceeding is with regard to the
payment of compensation for acquisition of land of the appellant by the Oil
India Ltd.(OIL) and payments thereof, made to the respondent No. 5, as its
lawful attorney.
5. Raising a grievance with regard to such disbursement of compensation
Page No.# 3/7
amount including the land compensation involved, the appellant, herein, had
instituted a writ petition being WP(c)3654/2024 before the learned Single
Judge.
6. The learned Single Judge vide order, dated 25.11.2024, in WP(c)
3654/2024, on noticing that the issues raised in the said writ petition was
primarily a civil dispute between the appellant and the respondent No. 5,
herein; refused to entertain the writ petition and proceeded to dismiss the
same, granting liberty to the appellant, herein, to file a civil suit before the
competent court of civil jurisdiction.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present
proceeding before this Court.
8. Ms. Hazarika, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, by
referring to the documents brought on record in the appeal memo, has
submitted that the land, in question, belonged to the appellant, herein,
however, the same was in possession of the respondent No. 5, herein.
Accordingly, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the land
compensation due for the acquisition made; was necessarily required to be so
paid to the appellant, herein, by the Oil India Ltd.(OIL) and the surface
compensation involved, could have been released to the respondent No. 5,
herein.
9. Ms. Hazarika, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that the said
amount being released to the respondent No. 5, herein, by the Oil India Ltd.
(OIL) authorities not having been remitted to the appellant, herein; the
Page No.# 4/7
appellant had instituted the connected writ petition being WP(c)3654/2024,
praying for a direction to the Oil India Ltd.(OIL) authorities to pay the amount
involved to the appellant, herein, either, by invoking the indemnity bond given
by the respondent No. 5, or, by recovering the same from the respondent No.
5. Accordingly, Ms. Hazarika, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the
learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the said writ petition
without examining the contentions raised, therein, by the appellant.
10. Per contra, Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of
the Oil India Ltd.(OIL) authorities, has submitted that in terms of the
irrevocable General Power of Attorney given to the respondent No. 5, by the
appellant, herein; the respondent No. 5 was empowered to deal with the land
involved. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that basing on
the said Power of Attorney, a joint application for grant of permission/No
Objection Certificate (NOC) for sale/purchase of the land between the
appellant, herein, and the Oil India Ltd.(OIL) authorities was made before the
jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. Such joint application was signed on
behalf of the appellant by its lawful attorney i.e. respondent No. 5, herein. Mr.
Kalita, learned standing counsel, has also submitted that basing on such joint
application, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, vide order, dated
08.06.2022, was pleased to grant the requisite permission/No Objection
Certificate(NOC) for the sale/purchase of the plot of land, in question.
11. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Oil India Ltd. (OIL), has submitted
that in terms of the provisions of Clause 21 of the irrevocable General Power
of Attorney executed between the appellant and the respondent No. 5, herein;
the respondent No. 5 was empowered to sign, execute, and present for
registration any deed or deeds of conveyance for registrations before the
Page No.# 5/7
concerned authority and get it registered either in her own name, or, in the
name of her Firm, or, in any other name, or, names as may be necessary in
respect of the plots of land of the appellant, herein, and/or other assets
whatsoever of Dekhari Unit I Division of Dekhari Tea Estate.
12. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Oil India Ltd.(OIL) authorities, has,
accordingly, submitted that the joint application submitted by the Oil India Ltd.
(OIL) authorities and respondent No. 5 on behalf of the appellant, herein, as
its lawful attorney for the permission/No Objection Certificate (NOC) for sale/
purchase of the land, in question, and the subsequent steps taken in
pursuance thereof, being in terms of the irrevocable General Power of
Attorney; the amount involved was remitted to the respondent No. 5, herein.
The learned standing counsel has further submitted that the amount involved
having already been remitted to the respondent No. 5 as the lawful attorney of
the appellant; the said amount has to be deemed to have been remitted to the
appellant, herein.
13. Mr. Kalita, learned standing counsel, Oil India Ltd.(OIL) authorities, has
further submitted that in the event, there is a dispute, such a dispute
primarily is between the respondent No. 5 and the appellant, herein, and
accordingly, he has submitted that the learned Single Judge had not
committed any error in passing the order, dated 25.11.2024.
14. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also
perused the materials available on record.
15. The learned Single Judge on noticing the issues arising in the said writ
Page No.# 6/7
petition being WP(c)3654/2024, vide order, dated 25.11.2024, had drawn the
following conclusions:
"2. The dispute raised in the instant proceedings pertains to certain amount which the
respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 had paid to the respondent No.5. The case of the petitioner
herein is that the petitioner ought to have been paid the amount and not the respondent
No.5.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 on the other hand,
categorically submits that on the basis of the materials on record, it would be seen that
the petitioner herein has no right to receive the amount.
4. Mr. A Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3
submits that the said respondents have nothing to do in the matter, taking into account
that on the basis of the power of attorney, the amount in question had been duly paid.
5. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, is of
the opinion that this matter is primarily a civil dispute between the petitioner as well as
the respondent No.5.
6. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is
not a fit case for being entertained.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed on being not entertained. However, the
petitioner herein would be at liberty to file a Civil Suit before the competent Court of
jurisdiction and the dismissal of the instant writ petition on being not entertained shall
not prejudice the petitioner. In addition to that, the period from 24.07.2024 till date be
excluded while computing the period of limitation."
16. The said conclusions drawn by the appellant, herein, on being examined
in the light of the materials brought on record; we are of the considered view
that the issue arising in the present proceeding, is primarily a civil dispute
between the appellant and the respondent No. 5, herein, and accordingly; the
said writ petition, in this connection, would not be maintainable. Such
conclusion drawn, cannot be held to be perverse.
17. We further notice that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order, dated 25.11.2024, in WP(c)3654/2024; is a plausible view
and accordingly, the same would not mandate any interference in an intra-
Court appeal.
18. In this connection, support is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble
Page No.# 7/7
Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar
Banerjee, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 232 , wherein, it has been held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in an intra-Court appeal, the finding of fact of
the learned Single Judge, unless such finding is concluded by the appellate
Bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed. It has been further
held that merely because another view, or, a better view is possible; there
should be no interference with, or, disturbance of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.
19. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above,
to the facts of the present case, we having not found any perversity with
regard to the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge in the impugned
judgment and the view taken by the learned single Judge being a plausible
view; we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned senior counsel
for the appellant, to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, we are of
the considered view that the order, dated 25.11.2024, passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(c)3654/2024, would not warrant any interference and
accordingly, the present intra-Court appeal stands dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
20. However, it is provided that the period spent by the appellant, herein, in
pursuing the present writ appeal as well as the connected writ petition, shall
be excluded while computing the period of limitation by the learned trial Court
on the appellant, herein, instituting a civil suit in terms of the liberty granted
by the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 25.11.2024.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING)
Comparing Assistant
