Gujarat High Court
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs Jagatsinh Vakhatsinh Vaghela on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1352/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1352 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED
Versus
JAGATSINH VAKHATSINH VAGHELA & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s)
No. 2
MR AM PAREKH(562) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - Oil & Natural
Gas Corporation Limited against the judgment and award
dated 10.01.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court')
in Land Acquisition Reference No. 312 of 1997, whereby, the
learned Judge partly allowed the Reference filed by the
respondent No.1 herein and awarded additional rental
compensation over and above the rent awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1352/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are that, the
appellant had acquired temporarily certain land belonging to
respondent No.1 by acquisition under the provisions of Section
35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). That
the lands of the claimants were accordingly temporarily
acquired by the appellant. That, the respondent No.2 - Special
Land Acquisition Officer, vide award dated 17.04.1995 in LAQ
Case No. 1/90/K directed the appellant to pay annual rent of
Rs. 1.25 per sq. mtr. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision
of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had filed
References initially claiming Rs. 5/- per sq. mtr. per annum.
Subsequently, by way of amendment, it was increased to Rs.
25/- per sq. mtr. per annum. That, the Reference Court has
held that the original claimant would be entitled to additional
rental compensation of Rs. 15.00 per sq. mtr. per annum i.e.
additional Rs. 13.75 per sq. mtr. over and above Rs. 1.25/-
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, total
rental compensation was fixed at Rs. 15.00 per sq. mtr. per
annum right from 06.12.1991.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the
appellant ONGC has filed the present First Appeal under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act & Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ajay Mehta, appearing for
the appellant - ONGC, learned advocate Mr. A.M. Parekh,
appearing for the respondent No.1 - original claimant and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1352/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Roshni Patel,
appearing for the respondent No.2.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta, appearing for the appellant
ONGC, has submitted that the appellant had acquired some
lands for temporary acquisition for the purpose of constructing
well, for which, notification was issued under Section 4 of the
Act, whereby, the Reference Court awarded compensation in
favour of the respondent - original claimant. He has submitted
that the Reference Court has not properly considered the facts
of the present case and also not considered the fact that it was
not for permanent acquisition but, it was a temporary
acquisition and therefore, the Reference Court has completely
ignored this aspect while recording the findings and has not
properly considered the submissions made on behalf of the
appellant while passing the impugned judgment and award
and has committed a serious error of law and on facts. He has
further submitted that there was a huge delay in preferring the
Reference before the Reference Court, however, the Reference
Court has not properly appreciated the said aspect while
passing the impugned judgment and award. Learned advocate
Mr. Mehta has referred and relied upon the decision of Division
Bench of this Court rendered in case of Deputy General
Manager vs. Bakaji Jivaji & Anr. in First Appeal No.1037
of 2009 decided on 12.02.2014, wherein, identical issue is
involved. He has also referred and relied upon the decision of
this Court rendered in case of Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. vs. Sankarji Hemani & Anr., reported in
[2008] 2 GLR 1226 and one another decision rendered in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1352/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
case of Dy. General Manager vs. Patel Anil Bachubhai &
Anr., reported in [2008] 2 GLH 767 and submitted that in
light of the above referred decisions, present appeal be
remitted back to the Reference Court for fresh consideration.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Parekh, appearing for the
respondent - original claimant, is unable to controvert the
submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the
appellant and submitted that appropriate orders may be
passed in light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court.
7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on record.
It appears that the controversy raised in the present appeal is
now not res integra in view of the two reported decisions relied
upon by this Court in First Appeal No.1037 of 2009, wherein, it
was specifically held that while considering the scope and
ambit of Reference Court in a reference under section 35(3) of
the Act that Collector or Reference Court has no jurisdiction to
determine and decide the rental beyond the period of 3 years
from the date of taking the possession. It was further held that
the Reference Court also has no jurisdiction to award mesne
profits for the occupation and possession of the land beyond 3
years. It is further held that it has no jurisdiction to pass an
order for restoring the possession of the land. It was further
held that a dispute whether there is an extension of an implied
contract/agreement or not also cannot be decided by
Reference Court. After so holding the Division Bench of this
Court has quashed and set aside the award determining the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1352/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
rental beyond the period of 3 years from the date of taking the
possession and has remanded the matters to the Reference
Court to decide the references afresh in accordance with law
and on merits and to decide the rental considering the
observations made in the aforesaid decisions.
8. In view of the above undisputed facts and the facts in the
present appeal, where the case is similar and identical, the
impugned judgment and award dated 10.01.2011 passed by
the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad in Land
Acquisition Reference No. 312 of 1997 is hereby quashed and
set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned
Reference Court to decide and dispose of the reference afresh
in accordance with law and on merits and determine the rental
and quantum of compensation for the period of 3 years from
the date of taking the possession and considering the
observations made in the aforesaid two decisions. Learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the ONGC to place on record
the aforesaid two reported decisions cited in First Appeal
No.1037 of 2009 by the Division Bench of this Court before the
Reference Court for its kind consideration so that the reference
on remand can be decided in light of the observations made in
the aforesaid two decisions. Present First Appeal is allowed to
the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, Registry is directed to return the Record & Proceedings
of the case to the Reference Court immediately.
8.1 It is also to be noted that pursuant to the interim order
passed by this Court, if, the appellant has deposited the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1352/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
amount of compensation as per the impugned judgment and
award passed by the learned Reference Court [which is now
set aside], and if the the same is lying in the Nazir department,
the same shall be continued to be invested in cumulative fixed
deposit as ordered earlier subject to the ultimate outcome of
the reference, when the matter is remanded back to the
Reference Court and any amount of compensation that may be
awarded by the Reference Court on remand, shall be
appropriated from the said fixed deposit, subject to obtaining
appropriate interim order by the higher Court/Forum.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
