Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Chand @ Nandi vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 April, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
RA-CW-96-2024 in
CWP-4652-2024
Reserved on: 10.04.2024
Pronounced on: 24.04.2024
JAGDISH CHAND @ NANDI .....Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Argued by: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
for the applicant-respondent No. 3.
Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate
for the non applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Senior Panel Counsel
for the non applicant-respondent No. 1.
Mr. R.K.Narang, Advocate
for the non applicant-respondent No. 2.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The instant review petition has been preferred by the
applicant whereby it seeks review/modification of paragraphs No. 15
and 16, as occur in the verdict as made by this Court, on 06.03.2024,
upon CWP-4652-2024. The said paragraphs are extracted hereinafter.
"15. Be that as it may, yet when for reasons (supra), this
Court has declared the notification (Annexure P-13), and,
the notices (Annexures P-14 and P-18) to be detracting
from the principles of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in paragraph 26 of the judgment (supra), thereby in
the respondents concerned, re-drawing the relevant
notification, for therebys thus the expostulation of law, as
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
carried in paragraph 27 of the verdict (supra), para
whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, rather do not
become eroded vis-a-vis their efficacy.
"27. Natural gas is one of the most important and
environment friendly sources of energy. Easy access
to the deposits of natural gas and quick and cost
effective transportation thereof are critical for
fulfilling basic necessities of the society. The
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act,
2006 enacted by Parliament creates Petroleum and
Natural Gas Regulatory Board to authorize entities
to lay, build, operate or expand to a common carrier
or contract carrier; regulate access to common
carrier or contract carrier; regulate transport rates
and ensure adequate availability of natural gas and
secure equitable distribution for petroleum
products. The activity of transportation of gas is
thus recognized as an activity of highest national
importance and subjected to statutory control in all
its dimensions. Transportation of natural gas
requires creation of necessary infrastructure either
by the State on its own or through private
enterprise. The pipeline in question was designed to
sub-serve public interest and as rightly contended
by the learned Solicitor General the element of
public interest is present all through, even when the
activity is undertaken through an entity in private
sector. Considering the nature of activity where
entities in private sector are encouraged to
participate, it would be incorrect to put any
restricted meaning as regards the expression
"Corporation". The definition of "Corporation"
under Section 2(b) of the PMP Act is wide enough to
include entities in private sector. This definition is
designedly kept wide enough to include all such
possibilities and there is no reason for giving any
restricted meaning to such expression. We,
therefore, reject the submission advanced by the
appellants."
16. Consequently, this Court after upholding the letter
of authorization (Annexure P-12), and, after quashing
Annexures P-13, P-14 and P-18, directs the respondents
concerned, to re-draw the apposite notification, and,
thereafter to re-draw the apposite show cause notice, but
only after adherence being made to the above stated
expostulations of law, as made in the verdict (supra),
inasmuch as, designating the person as "competent
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
authority", who otherwise is but a trained judicial mind or
has the requisite qualifications to well exercise the wide
range of powers for determining the compensation to the
land owners concerned, rather upon the respondent(s)
concerned, making user of the said sub land(s)."
2. Through the above extracted paragraphs, this Court had
after quashing Annexures P-13, P-14, P-18, thus had directed the
respondent concerned, to re-draw the apposite notification and
thereafter to re-draw the apposite show cause notice. The said
direction(s) became rested on the premise that the District Revenue
Officer concerned, rather was not a trained judicial mind, thereby, the
expostulation law as occurs in paragraph No. 31 of the verdict made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya
and others versus State of Gujarat and others', reported in (2016) 9
Supreme Court Cases 791, thus becoming breached. The said
paragraph No. 31 as occurs in the verdict (supra), is also extracted
hereinafter.
"31. It is axiomatic that a person who occupies the
position of Competent Authority under the PMP Act must
evoke and enjoy public confidence. Neither the Act nor the
Rules framed thereunder deal with the qualifications
required of a person before his appointment as Competent
Authority nor do they deal with any transparent process
for such appointment. We may now turn to see the
requirements in that behalf in an enactment which is pari
materia. Section 2(1)(e) of the Metro Railway
(Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (Metro Act, for short),
defines Competent Authority as the one appointed under
Section 16. Section 16(2) then sets out,
"16.(2) A person shall not be qualified for
appointment as a Competent Authority unless he is
holding, or has held, a Judicial Office, not lower in rank
than that of a Subordinate Judge."
Like the PMP Act, the Metro Act also confers power upon
the Competent Authority therein to consider objections to
the construction of the Metro Railway or any other work
and to determine the amount payable for acquisition. The
orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Metro
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
Act are also appealable before an Appellate Authority. In
our view, the Competent Authority under the provisions of
the PMP Act must also be someone who is holding or has
held a Judicial Office not lower in rank than that of a
Subordinate Judge or is a trained legal mind. If such
requirement is not read into and not taken as an integral
and essential qualification before appointment of any
person as Competent Authority, the provisions in that
behalf will not be consistent with the doctrine of fairness
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same
time, we hasten to add that actions taken by the Competent
Authority till now, will not in any way stand impaired or
be invalidated purely on this count. But the Central
Government may do well to step in immediately and
remedy the situation with appropriate measures."
3. Initially, the review petition would be maintainable before
this Court only when it is structured within the four corners of Order 47
Rule 1 of the CPC. The relevant provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the
CPC are extracted hereinafter.
"1. Application for review of judgment.--(1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or order made
against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the
Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -5- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present
to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the
review.
[Explanation.--The fact that the decision on a question of
law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for
the review of such judgment.]
4. Though the learned counsel for the review applicant
submits, that there is no ex facie error apparent on the face of record,
but he submits, that since the relevant letter dated 30.05.2015,
appended as Annexure A-2 with the review application, thus therebys
beget compliance with directions rendered in Laljibhai's case (supra).
Moreover, when it has also been contended that the said guidelines
dated 15.05.2018, are stricto sensu in terms of paragraph No. 31 of the
verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laljibhai's case (supra).
The said guidelines are extracted hereinafter.
" 3. In view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India and examination done in consultation with Oil
PSUs, the following guidelines are hereby issued:-
1) Officers having experience of revenue court and land
related matters will generally be proposed to be appointed
as Competent Authority under the PMP act.
ii) These officers should preferably be of /or above the
level of Deputy Collector or equivalent, to the State
Government.
III) Officers having Law degree may be given preference
in proposals for appointment as Competent Authority.
iv) In cases where no such officer is available, other
officers may be proposed.
4. It is requested that names of officers may be proposed
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -6- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
as per above mentioned guidelines for appointment as
Competent Authority under the PMP Act, 1962."
5. Consequently, it is argued that since the said Annexure A-2
became discovered subsequent to the decision made by this Court, upon
the writ petition (supra), and/or was not earlier despite the exercising of
due diligence, thus within the knowledge of the applicant, whereas,
both its discovery, and, now its adduction, as Annexure A-2, rather is
just and essential for deciding the review application, and/or, for
modifying the directions as carried in paragraphs No. 15 and 16, as
occur in the verdict made by this Court, on 06.03.2024, upon CWP-
4652-2024, wherebys the District Revenue Officer concerned, has been
declared to be an ill trained judicial mind. Therefore, it is contended
that in terms of Annexure A-2, wherewith becomes appended the
relevant guidelines relating to adherences being made to the
observation(s), as become carried in paragraph No. 31 of the verdict
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laljibhai's case (supra), therebys
when all the requisite qualifications do evidently become possessed by
the District Revenue Officer, Faridabad. Consequently, it is argued that
if yet the said directions are maintained, thereby the guidelines as
become appended as Annexure A-2, especially when they are made in
alignment of the verdict (supra), made by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
rather would become untenably disregarded, besides would lead to
gross injustice. In sequel, it is contended that the review application be
allowed and the District Revenue Officer, Faridabad be permitted to
function as 'Competent Authority' under the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter
for short called as 'the PMP Act').
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -7- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
6. Reiteratedly in para No. viii of the review application, it
has been stated that the District Revenue Officer, Faridabad, possessed
the requisite experience of his being a trained judicial mind, given his
since the year 2004, discharging duties as a Tehsildar, and thereafter,
his being in the year 2021, thus promoted to the post of District
Revenue Officer. Resultantly, he submits that when in paragraph No.
31 in the verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laljibhai's case
(supra), it has been propounded that only trained judicial minds, be
assigned the duties of Collector, as therebys they enjoy public trust and
confidence in the discharging of extremely ultra sensitive duties, of
'Competent Authority' under 'the PMP Act'. Resultantly, the said quasi
judicial experience of the District Revenue Officer, Faridabad, makes
him a trained judicial mind.
7. In the light of the above, since the said material, though
had not become placed on record at the stage of adjudication being
made upon CWP-4652-2024, but since it has a deep pervasive effect
qua the designation of District Revenue Officer, as the 'Competent
Authority' in terms of 'the PMP Act'. Moreover, when the District
Revenue Officer, Faridabad, is stated in para No. viii of the review
application besides is also orally submitted by the counsel for the
applicant to possess immense quasi judicial experience, besides his thus
being a trained judicial mind, in terms of the guidelines (supra), as
made in compliance of observation(s) (supra) as occur in paragraph No.
31 in the verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laljibhai's case
(supra).
8. Therefore, a good ground is made for review/modification
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -8- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
of the order/directions made by this Court in paragraphs No. 15 and 16
of the verdict made by this Court on 06.03.2024, upon CWP-4652-
2024, whereby this Court had quashed Annexures P-13, P-14 and P-18
and further directions have been issued upon the respondent concerned
to strictly in terms of paragraph No. 31 of the verdict made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Laljibhai's case (supra), thus to designate an
Officer other than the District Revenue Officer, Faridabad, rather as the
'Competent Authority' under 'the PMP Act'.
FINAL ORDER OF THIS COURT.
9. Consequently, the review petition is allowed. The afore
direction(s) as made in the verdict (supra) are re-called/reviewed.
10. Be that as it may, the respondent concerned in designating
any public functionary as the 'Competent Authority' under 'the PMP
Act' are required to be making strict adherence to the guidelines, as
become appended as Annexure A-2, with the review application.
11. In addition, the requisite quasi judicial experience, to be
possessed by the 'Competent Authority', is required to be spanning over
a period of more than ten years. Moreover, such officers should
preferably be of/or above the level of Deputy Collector or equivalent
thereto. Furthermore, preference is to be accorded to those officers who
possess a law degree, but when such officers are not available,
thereupon yet insistence be made that any officer who is to be
designated as a competent authority under 'the PMP Act', qua his
imperatively possessing quasi judicial experience, thus evidently
extending upto a span of atleast upto ten years, besides is required to be
possessed of virtues of utmost rectitude and probity, as therebys in his
discharging ultra sensitive public duties, he would evoke public
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056628-DB
RA-CW-96-2024 in CWP-4652-2024 -9- 2024:PHHC:056628-DB
confidence and trust.
12. Since the main review application itself has been decided,
thus, all the pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(LALIT BATRA)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
9 of 9
