Ganpatbhai Prahladbhai ... vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 1338 Guj

      C/FA/805/2011                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2023




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO.805 of 2011


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE :


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. DESAI                                           Sd/-

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN                                        Sd/-

=========================================
  1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO
        allowed to see the judgment ?

  2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                              NO

  3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair                         NO
        copy of the judgment ?

  4. Whether          this   case   involves       a   substantial        NO
        question of law as to the interpretation of the
        constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
        thereunder ?

=========================================
                GANPATBHAI PRAHLADBHAI PRAJAPATI & 2 others
                                   Versus
                OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD & 2 others
=========================================
Appearance :
MS MOHINI J BHAVSAR for the Appellants.
MR TANMAY B KARIA for the Defendants.
=========================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M.
       SAREEN



                                     Page 1 of 8

                                                               Downloaded on : Wed Feb 08 21:02:23 IST 2023
       C/FA/805/2011                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2023




                       Date : 08/02/2023
                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. J. DESAI)

1. By way of the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants - original plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and order dated 11.1.2008 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 1998 by which the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.23,37,456/- along with interest for temporary acquisition to lay the pipelines by the respondent - Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (for short 'ONGC').

2. The appeal came to be admitted on 8.3.2011.

Thereafter, Records and Proceedings were called for by coordinate Bench of this Court by oral order dated 30.11.2016 which has reached this Court and placed before us for perusal.

3. The case put forward by the appellants - original plaintiffs is as under :-

3.1 The appellants - original plaintiffs are owners and occupiers of land bearing Survey No.125/2,3,4 admeasuring 46 Gunthas and Revenue Survey No.126/1 admeasuring Acres 1.30 Gunthas situated at the outskirt of village Balwasan, Taluka Viramgam, Dist. Ahmedabad. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that they were carrying out agricultural activities and were earning livelihood from the proceeds produced from the said lands.

3.2 Since the respondent - ONGC intended to install GG SC

C/FA/805/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2023

TF point pipeline from Bahuraji to GGS and the same was passing from the aforesaid lands, some part of the lands of the appellants was acquired for laying the said pipelines. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that due to installation of the pipelines, 200 trees of Bordies and Neem were cut down due to which plaintiffs have suffered huge monetary loss. It is also their case that they have lost crop because of laying down the pipelines and, therefore, they have filed the suit claiming compensation of Rs.23,37,456/- along with interest.

3.3 The respondents - ONGC appeared in the suit and filed written statement at Exh.6 and opposed the suit.

3.4 The appellant - original plaintiff examined himself at Exh.7. The defendant - ONGC cross-examined the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter did not examine any other witness. The plaintiff also produced certain documentary evidence like rates of crop supplied by local APMC. The learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings, framed issues at Exh.8. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record did not find any merit in the case put forward by the appellant and dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment.

4. Hence this appeal.

5. Ms. Mohini Bhavsar, learned advocate appearing for the appellants by taking us through the impugned judgment, particularly paragraph 9, would submit that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. She would further submit that in fact, the suit was filed

C/FA/805/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2023

in the year 1994 before the Court at Mehsana and the same was within a period of three years from the date of part of the compensation paid by ONGC. Thereafter, since the suit lands are situated at Viramgam, the suit was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar and hence, learned Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit on this ground.

5.1 She would further submit that the learned Trial Court has also not properly appreciated the evidence led by the plaintiffs and other documentary evidence produced and proved by the plaintiffs. She, therefore, would submit that the appeal be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Tanmay B. Karia, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has opposed this appeal. He would submit that the suit is of the year 1998 and on that ground, the learned Trial Court has held that the suit was barred by limitation. He, however, would submit that apart from this aspect, the appellants have miserably failed to establish the case about cutting the number of trees of Boradi trees and Neem trees as alleged in the plaint and no documentary evidence like Certificate of Talati of the village about the existence of trees was produced by the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court. By taking us through the cross-examination of the plaintiffs, he would submit that the plaintiff has admitted that he is unable to produce any document with regard to the trees existing on the date of temporary acquisition. He would further submit that in absence of any material about crops harvested by the plaintiffs and destroyed at the time of laying the pipelines by ONGC, the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal be dismissed.

C/FA/805/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2023

7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and the records and proceedings. Considering the pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed issues at Exh.8 which reads as under :-

"1. Whether plaintiffs prove the negligence and carelessness of defendants while causing losses and damages to their field for the period from 17.12.1991 to 24.12.1991.

2. Whether plaintiffs prove the losses and damages sustained by them due to negligence and carelessness of the defendants as per shown above.

3. Whether defendants prove that plaintiffs suit is false and not maintainable.

4. Whether defendants prove that this suit is barred on the point of res judicata and estoppel.

5. Whether defendants prove that they have already paid well assessed amount to plaintiffs vide compensation in respect of the suit dispute.

6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs as prayed for ?

7. What order and decree ?"

C/FA/805/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2023

8. Paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment reads as under :-

"9. Moreover, on the strength of legal provisions of Limitation Act and Article 72, it is seen that this suit is completely barred on the point of limitation which is worth quoted as under :-

Article 72. For compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being in the territories to which this act extends. Wherein period of limitation is very specifically and precisely shown as One year, when the act or omission takes place.

Moreover, in this suit the suit land is seen acquired by the defendants on dated 12.12.1991 and therefore on the strength of aforesaid condition precedent the plaintiffs were very strictly bound to file their suit even on or before 11.12.1992, but it has not been done so from the plaintiffs side, and hence it goes without say that plaintiffs suit is barred on the point of limitation and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not at all entitled for the reliefs as sought for in the suit on hand. Hence, I answer issue No.6 in the negative."

9. Considering the submission made by learned advocate appearing for the appellants about filing of the suit originally in the year 1994 is concerned, we have perused the original record. It

C/FA/805/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2023

appears from the record that on 13.9.1994, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Mehsana. The suit remained pending for number of years. Since the land in question is located within the jurisdiction of Viramgam Court, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Mehsana passed an order on 13.1.1998 transferring the suit to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam and was numbered as Special Civil Suit No.32 of 1998. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the suit was barred by limitation.

Even it appears that no issue was raised about limitation either at the time of filing written statement or at the time of final arguments advanced before the learned Trial Court.

10. As far as the case put forward by the plaintiffs for compensation, we have gone through the deposition of plaintiff at Exh.7. He has admitted that when the lands in question was acquired for temporary period for laying down the pipelines, compensation was paid to him. However, at that time, he has not raised any objection including destruction of the crops or cutting of a single tree. Further, the plaintiff has also admitted in his cross- examination that he has not obtained any certificate about the damages of the crops suffered by him due to temporary acquisition at the time of laying down the pipelines. He has also admitted that he has no certificate issued by Talati of the concerned Village that 200 trees were in existence on the land in dispute. No documentary evidence with regard to the same is produced by the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court.

C/FA/805/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/02/2023

11. By producing only the rates of the crops issued by APMC, the same cannot be accepted in absence of any other material whatsoever produced by the plaintiffs or proved in support of their case. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the suit on the ground of lack of evidence to establish any damages caused to the plaintiffs. Hence, the present appeal stands dismissed.

Registry is directed to send back Records and Proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith.

Sd/-

(A. J. DESAI, J)

Sd/-

(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J)

SAVARIYA