[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Habib Ali And Anr on 19 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010046362024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1014/2024
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
(ASSAM OIL DIVISION), DIGBOI REFINERY, P.O.- DIGBOI, DIST.- TINSUKIA,
ASSAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
VERSUS
HABIB ALI AND ANR.
S/O LATE HAFIZ ALI,
VILL.- GARIGAON, P.O.- GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, MOUZA- JALUKBARI, P.S.-
JALUKBARI, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781014.
2:THE COLLECTOR
KAMRUP (M)
HENGERABARI
P.S.- DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DEKA, MR. M GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR N KALITA (R-1),Mr Giyas (R-1)
Linked Case :
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
VERSUS
Page No.# 2/5
HABIB ALI AND ANR A
------------
Advocate for : MR. N DEKA
Advocate for : appearing for HABIB ALI AND ANR A
Linked Case :
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
VERSUS
HABIB ALI AND ANR A
------------
Advocate for : MR. N DEKA
Advocate for : appearing for HABIB ALI AND ANR A
Linked Case :
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
VERSUS
HABIB ALI AND ANR A
------------
Advocate for : MR. N DEKA
Advocate for : appearing for HABIB ALI AND ANR A
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 19.01.2026
1. Heard Mr. M. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also
heard Mr. N. Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as
Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned Government counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2
2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has
been filed by the applicants, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Assam Oil
Division), Digboi Refinery, praying for condonation of delay of 4,792 days
in preferring the connected land acquisition appeal, wherein the judgment
dated 30.10.2008, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District
Judge (FTC) No. 3 Kamrup at Guwahati in Misc. (Reference) Case No.
10/2002, has been impugned.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the
aforesaid Misc. (Reference) Case, the present applicant was not made as
party. He submits that the present applicant/appellant came to know
about the impugned judgment only on 04.04.2022, when the applicant
received a letter dated 01.04.2022 from the Deputy Commissioner,
Kamrup, Metro, informing the pendency of Money Execution Case No.
7/2020.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that
thereafter, the applicant had applied for certified copy of the impugned
judgment. However, the certified copy was not furnished to them and
Page No.# 4/5
applicants in this regard also filed a complaint to the Court of the learned
Additional District Judge, No. 2, Kamrup, Metro. When was he filed before
the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Metro.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant again on 09.12.2022, applied afresh for the certified copy of the
impugned judgment.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1
has countered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant
by referring to a letter dated 07.10.2010, which is annexed as Annexure-A
by the Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the
information regarding 10.10.2012 by the Court of learned Additional
District Judge, FTC No. 3 was forwarded by the Additional Duty
Commissioner, Kamrup, Metro to the Government pleader. He submits that
copy of the aforesaid letter was also forwarded to the Area Manager, IOC,
Assam Oil Division.
7. He further submits that the extract copy of the Peon book,
which is annexed as Annexure-B by the said respondent, also shows that
Area Manager, IOC, Assam Oil Division, Marketing Division have received
the said letter on 08.10.2010. Therefore, he submits that the contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that till 04.04.2022, the
applicant was not aware about the impugned judgment is not measurable.
He further submits that in the meanwhile, the impugned judgment of the
Reference Court had already been executed and the Respondent No.1 and
other beneficiaries have received the enhanced amount of the
compensation.
8. The learned Government Advocate, Mr. T. R. Gogoi also confirms
Page No.# 5/5
to the submissions made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1. He
further submits that to remove any doubt regarding receipt of letter dated
07.10.2010 by the Area Manager, IOC, he can produce the original Peon
book extract of which has been annexed as Annexure-B by the
Respondent No.1.
9. Considering the submissions made by learned Government
Advocate, the prayer is allowed.
10. He is requested to produce the original Peon book from which the
Annexure-B has been annexed by the Respondent No. 1.
11. Though, the learned counsel for the applicant has questioned the
fact as to how respondent No. 1, who is a private individual, got access to
abstract of peon book which is a government record and the same is not
clear from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1,
however, the prayer of learned Government Advocate is allowed. He is
requested to produce the original peon book before this Court on the next
date fixed.
12. Let this matter be listed again on 10.03.2026.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
