Gujarat High Court

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. ... vs Patel Somabhai Prabhudas (Heirof Patel ... on 8 July, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/867/2007                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 867 of 2007
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 of 2007
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 869 of 2007
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 870 of 2007
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 871 of 2007
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 872 of 2007
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 873 of 2007
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 874 of 2007

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                   Yes           No
                       ==========================================================
                           OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. (THROUGH GENERAL
                                                 MANAGER)
                                                   Versus
                          PATEL SOMABHAI PRABHUDAS (HEIROF PATEL PARSOTTAMBHAI
                                               SOMDAS & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS AISHWARYA REDDY M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the Appellant(s)
                       No. 1
                       MR AV PRAJAPATI for the Respondent(s) No.1
                       MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No.2
                       ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
                                                         Date : 08/07/2025

                                                    COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

1. All these appeals involve common questions on law and

facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common

judgment.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common

judgment and award dated 22.09.2005 passed by the

learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana,

(hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land

Acquisition Reference Nos.5789 of 2003 to 5796 of 2003

whereby the References were partly allowed and the

present appellant - O.N.G.C. was held liable to pay

additional amount of compensation to the original

claimants along with interest and costs.

3. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are that

the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act

made a proposal for temporary acquisition of the lands at

village Balol District Mehsana, belonging to the

respondents-original claimants. After following due

procedure, the lands came to be acquired. Award came to

be passed by the competent authority fixing the amount

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

of compensation.

3.1. However, being dissatisfied with the award, the

original claimants raised dispute, by way of references.

The Reference Court partly allowed the Reference Cases

by way of the impugned judgment and award awarding

Rs. 3.33 per sq. mtr. from the date of taking possession

upto 31.12.1985, Rs.4/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1986 to

31.12.1987, Rs.4.50 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1988 to

31.12.1990, Rs.5/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1991 to

31.12.1993, Rs.6.66 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1994 to

31.12.1996, Rs.8.33 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1997 to

31.12.1999, Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.2000 to

31.12.2002, Rs.12/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.2003 to

31.12.2004 and thereafter, Rs.15/- per sq. mtr from

1.1.2005 onwards as against the amount of Rs.0.52 per

sq. mtr. respectively. Being aggrieve and dissatisfied

with the same, the appellant has preferred these appeals.

4. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Reddy, learned advocate for M/s.

Trivedi and Gupta for the appellant and Mr. A.V.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

Prajapati, learned advocate for the claimants and Ms.

Roshni Patel for respondent No.2.

5. Ms. Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant-ONGC,

has submitted that the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court is erroneous, unjust and

against the settled principle of law. She has submitted

that the jurisdiction of Reference Court under Section

35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act is limited to

determining questions of sufficiently of compensation and

that too only in case of a difference between the Collector

and persons interested that arose at the relevant point of

time. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted

that the reference court has no power to consider the

compensation beyond the period of three years. She has

submitted that the reference court has committed serious

error while allowing all the reference cases. She has

submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing

reference cases. She has submitted that the original

award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on

21.3.1983 whereas and the reference cases was filed

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

after almost 18 years i.e. on 15.10.2001 and therefore it

was time barred and the said cases are liable to be

dismissed on the ground of delay alone. With regard to

limitation, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the

decision of this Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas

Corporation Ltd. vs Sankarji Hemaji & Anr. reported

in 2008 2 GLR 1226. She has submitted that even the

reference court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay

beyond the period of three years, when the acquisition is

of temporary usage of the land, under Section 35(3) of the

Land Acquisition Act. She has submitted that without

considering the facts of the case, the reference court has

passed the impugned judgment and award in favour of

the opponent original claimants. She has also submitted

that even the reference Court has also exceeded

jurisdiction while awarding interest beyond a period of

three years, because when the Court has no power to

award the compensation beyond period of three years,

there is no question of awarding interest, as it was

awarded by the reference court in the present case.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

5.1 Ms. Reddy, learned advocate for the appellant

referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court

dated 15.6.2015 passed in First Appeal No.4854 of 2008,

decision dated 20.1.2025 passed in First Appeal No. 887

of 2007 and allied group of appeals, decision dated

12.202024 passed in First Appeal No. 1037 of 2009 and

the decision dated 16.6.2005 in First Appeal No. 5634 of

2008 and urges that the impugned judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court may be quashed and set

aside.

5.2 Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for the respondent

No.2 has supported the arguments of Ms. Reddy, learned

advocate for the appellant.

5.3 As against that Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate

for the claimants is unable to respond this legal

submission advanced by learned advocate for the

appellant, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in

the above referred decisions and therefore, he urges

before the Court that appropriate order may be passed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

6. I have gone through the record of the appeals and

relevant documents. I have also examined the record and

proceedings of the appeal and the material placed on

record.

7. It appears that present appeals came to be admitted

vide order dated 15.2.2007 passed by coordinate bench of

this Court and conditional interim relief was grated by

the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated

15.2.2007 passed in Civil Application Nos. 2500 to 2507

of 2007.

8. While considering the contention with regard to

delay, it is appropriate to refer the observations made by

this Court in the case of O.N.G.C. (supra) which reads

as under:-

"(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) - Sec. 35(3)-

Limitation Act, 1963 (XXXVI of 1963) - Art.137 - Lands acquired in 1980-Applications fro reference made in 2001- Held, reference applications were not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. (C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) - Sec. 35- Scope of power of reference Court is confined to determine adequacy of compensation / rent - Reference Court gave findings holding that acquisition proceedings were null and void, that possession of acquiring body

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

(O.N.G.C.) was illegal and unauthorized, etc. - Findings and observations, held, were beyond the jurisdiction the reference Court - Observation made that the Judge of the reference Court had "tried to show his own knowledge without proper application of mind to the issue"

25.Even otherwise as stated above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under sec.35 of the Act as back as on 11/8/1980 determining the compensation/rent at the rate of 0.35 paise per sq.mtr. per annum which was never objected to by the original land owners / interested persons, but the same came to be accepted without raising any objection and still the respondents herein - original claimants submitted the applications for making reference to the reference court under sub section (3) of sec.35 i.e. after a period of 21 years raising the dispute as to sufficiency of the compensation which was determined while declaring award on 11/8/1980. It is the contention on behalf of the original claimants that as under sub section (3) of sec.58 of the Act on 11/8/2008, no time limit is prescribed and as it is the duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the Reference Court and as the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, the application submitted by the claimants are within the period of limitation and/or not barred by delay and laches. It is the contention on behalf of the appellants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer that when there is no limitation prescribed, Article 137 of the Limitation Act would come in picture and within three years from the date of cause of action, the applications could have been made. It is true that under sub section (3) of sec.35 of the Act, no limitation is prescribed. However, that does not mean that the application for reference can be made at any time. Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides that when there is no limitation prescribed or provided, three years would be the limitation and from the date of cause of action within three years, an aggrieved person can initiate proceedings. The reference court has misinterpreted the provisions of Sec.35 of the Act. While considering the submissions with regard to the limitation, the reference court has held that as the entire

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

land acquisition proceedings and the award are null and void, Article 137 of the Limitation Act (reference court has considered sec.137 of the Limitation Act wrongly) would not be applicable, more particularly when the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, making the reference to the reference court as provided under sub section (3) of section 35 of the Act. As stated above, such a findings and the observations of the Reference Court are perverse and illegal. As held by us, there was no dispute with regard to sufficiency of the possession raised by the claimants at the relevant time when the award was declared, therefore, there was no occasion for the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference court and we have also held that the reference applications are not maintainable. Even otherwise, assuming that it was the duty of the Collector to refer the dispute to the reference court and when the Collector failed to perform his duty, in that case also, the claimants are required to initiate appropriate proceedings within reasonable time, as there is no time limit prescribed under the Act. Certainly the claimants cannot submit the applications and/or raise the dispute after a period of 21 years. Thus, on the ground of delay and laches the reference applications were not maintainable. As such when the applications were submitted after a period of 21 years raising dispute with regard to adequacy of the compensation awarded in the year 1980, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ought not to have referred the dispute to the reference court. As such the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself has committed an error and/or acted arbitrarily in referring the dispute to the reference Court after a period of 21 years."

9. In the above referred observations, Article 137 of

the Limitation Act is very well discussed by this Court.

Even in the decision of this Court dated 15.6.2015 passed

in First Appeal No.4854 of 2008 and yet another decision

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

of this dated 12.8.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 3865

of 2008, the said issue is well discussed.

10. Considering the above referred decisions of this

Court vis as vis it is evident from the present record that

the reference court, without considering the issue of

delay has passed the impugned judgment and award in

favour of the opponent original claimants. Even otherwise

as stated above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer

declared the award under Section 35 of the Act as back

as in the year 1983 determining the compensation, which

was never objected by the original land owners-interested

persons and the same came to be accepted without

raising any objection. The contention on behalf of original

claimants that under Subsection (3) of Section 35 of the

Act, no time limit is prescribed and as it is a duty of the

Collector to refer the dispute to the reference court and

as the collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon

him, the application submitted by the claimants before

the District Court are within a period of limitation and not

barred by the delay and laches, would come into play

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025

undefined

when there is no limit prescribed under Article 137 of the

Limitation Act and within three years from the date of

cause of action the application could have been made.

The said Section 35(3) reads as under:-

"35. Temporary occupation of waste or arable land. Procedure when difference as to compensation exists (1)XXXXXXXXX (2)XXXXXXXXX (3) In case the Collector and the persons interested differ as to the sufficiency of the compensation or apportionment thereof, the Collector shall refer such difference to the decision of the Court."

11. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the

reference Court committed serious error in entertaining

reference almost after delay of 18 years from the date of

the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

The reference was not maintenance beyond a period of

limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation

Act. Even otherwise, looking to the scheme of the Act in

absence of any power being conferred upon reference

Court, delay cannot be condoned by the reference Court.

12. In view of settled legal position the reference court

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/867/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025