Gujarat High Court
General Manager,Oil & Natural Gas ... vs Spl.Laq Officer on 12 October, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/FA/869/2003 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 869 of 2003
==========================================================
GENERAL MANAGER,OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP.LTD.
Versus
SPL.LAQ OFFICER & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR MANRAJ BAROT, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 12/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for
the appellant has submitted that the present appeal has been
left out from the group of appeals i.e. First Appeal No.868 of
2003 and allied matters, which was disposed of by the order
dated 08.12.2010. He has submitted that accordingly, the
same order is passed.
2. Thus, since no one has chosen to appear on behalf of the
defendants-heirs of the original claimant, the present appeal is
disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.12.2010. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the First
Appeal No.868 of 2003 and allied matters, had observed thus:
"5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the documents on record. Similar issues arose for
consideration of this Court in a group of appeals being
First Appeal No.792/2003 & allied matters. The said group
C/FA/869/2003 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
of appeals came to be disposed of by this Court, vide
judgment and order dated 21.03.2006, relevant portions of
which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference;
"5.2 On the facts of the case, it is evident that the
Reference Court has also determined the further rent
which issue was not before it. I am, therefore, of
the opinion that the contention raised by the learned
Advocate for the appellant that the observation or
direction issued by the Reference Court in the
operative part of the orders require to be quashed
and set aside, is required to be accepted. If the
said direction is allowed to remain then it would
amount to granting the rent which is over the rent
fixed by the appellant-O.N.G.C. from time to time.
Moreover, the same has been fixed without considering
as to what would be the future rent fixed by the
appellant- O.N.G.C, which is beyond the scope of
reference. Hence if the said observation is allowed
to remain then, in that event such compensation would
be much more than the amount which has been found to
be adequate by the Court.
5.3 It may be noted that the Reference Court was
dealing with a particular acquisition and it was not
open for the said Court to pass an order in respect
of future rent. Such an observation on the part of
the Reference Court is clearly bad in law in view of
the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Act. In that
view of the matter, the observations or direction
issued by the Reference Court with regard to
additional amount of compensation, requires to be
quashed and set aside. 6.0 In the result, these
appeals are allowed. The observation "over the rent
fixed by O.N.G.C. from time to time with the running
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of due
date of running till the day of payment is made",
made by the Reference Court in the operative part of
the impugned judgments and awards, is quashed and set
aside. These appeals are allowed to the aforesaid
extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent
with no order as to costs."
6. From the above order passed by this Court, it is clear
that while dealing with an application u/s. 35(3) of the
said Act, the reference Court is not empowered to pass an
order in respect of future rent. Hence, the impugned
orders passed by the reference Court, being bad in law,
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter
requires reconsideration. 7. For the foregoing reasons,
all the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned awards
C/FA/869/2003 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
passed by the reference Court are quashed and set aside.
The matters are remanded to the concerned reference Court
for consideration afresh on merits in view of the
principle laid down by this Court in the above decision
and also being uninfluenced of this order. The references,
being very old, the concerned reference Court is directed
to dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a
period of two years from the date of receipt of writ of
this order."
3. The final directions issued by this Court reveal that the
reference Court was directed to dispose of the references
within a period of two years from the date of receipt of writ of
the order, after the matter was remanded by this Court.
4. Under the circumstances, it is clarified that the
defendants will be governed by the final judgment or any
orders passed in the analogous references, which were
ordered to be restored by the order dated 08.12.2010 passed
in First Appeal No.868 of 2003 and allied matters.
5. The present appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
6. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MB/ 132
