Tripura High Court
Mr. Ranjit Dasgupta vs Mr. Raju Datta on 16 April, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP 2/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjit Dasgupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
16/04/2021
Heard Mr. Ranjit Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as Mr. Raju Datta appearing for the claimant-respondents.
2. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment
dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Sepahijala, Bishalgarh in case No. Civil Misc. (PMP) 68 of 2014 wherein
the learned trial court has awarded compensation for laying Gas Pipelines
damaging the trees thereof.
3. The facts in brief, are that, the respondents no. 1,2 and 3, here-in-
after referred to as ONGC Ltd. by gazette notification dated 02.03.2011
used the land-in-question for the purpose of laying down Gas Pipelines
for the use of Thermal Project in Palatana, Udaipur, South Tripura, now
Gomati District. The matter was referred to the competent authority. The
competent authority made an award vide order dated 04.01.2012. Being
dissatisfied with the award by the competent authority, the land owners,
i.e. the respondents herein, filed an application under Section 10 of the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines (Acquisition of Right of User in land)
Act, 1962, here-in-after, the Act, and prayed for redetermination of the
compensation. The matter was referred to the court of learned Additional
District Judge. The proceeding started with filing of plaint. Written
objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner-ONGC. Thereafter, issses
were framed based on the pleadings of the parties. Evidences were
recorded. Having heard the learned counsel and on consideration of the
evidences and materials on record, the learned Additional District Judge
assessed the valuation of the damaged trees to the tune of Rs. 13,04,000/-
vide judgment dated 23.08.2019, which is under challenge before this
court.
4. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner-ONGC, has raised the point of limitation and submitted that the
learned Additional District Judge ought to have rejected the application of
the respondent-land owners for the reason that the application was filed
beyond the period of limitation. Mr. Dasgupta, has further contended that
when a specific ground has been taken in the written objection saying that
the suit is barred by law of limitation and, as specific issue has been
framed in this regard, duty casts upon the court to decide this issue. To
substantiate his submission, Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel has strongly
placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Babu
and others vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma and others [Civil Appeal no. 2815 of
2008, decided on 16th April, 2008]. Mr. Dasgupta, has further relied upon
a decision of this court rendered in Sri Tarani Debbarma and another vs.
The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and others [ CRP no. 17 of
2016 and other related cases, decided on 30.05.2017].
5. I have considered the submission of Mr. S. Dasgupta, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the judgments, learned counsel has
referred to here-in-above.
6. The main crux of these judgments is that if an application under
Section 10(2) of the PMP Act is filed after expiry of 90 days, the
prescribed period of limitation under the PMP Rules, then, there must be
a formal application to be filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act stating the ground for delay. It is also the duty of the
petitioner to make statement in his petition as to when he was intimated
with the order of the competent authority or when he received the
knowledge of passing the order by the competent authority. It is also
clarified in the judgment of Tarani Debbarma (supra) that mere signing
on the receipt register or any other document or indemnity bond not
relating to the substantive content of the award cannot form 'intimation'.
Intimation must be substantive and as a safer course, it must carry a copy
of the order of award. No other document shall be considered, as
intimation. It is also held in Tarani Debbarma (supra), that mere
intimation of mere knowledge would not suffice, it shall be substantive,
meaning that the intimation shall carry un-substantive knowledge or the
relevant part thereof. Its communicating thereafter shall be established.
7. In the instant case, a specific statement has been made by the
petitioner-ONGC that the respondents i.e. the land owners filed the
application under Section 10(2) of the PMP Act, on 13.08.2019, whereas,
the competent authority determined the compensation vide award dated
04.01.2012. As such, the delay is apparent on the face of the record.
8. In my opinion, in that case, it is the duty of the petitioner to submit
a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
9. From the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, it reveals that while deciding the case, the learned
Additional District Judge has observed that the petitioner-ONGC did not
raise any question regarding maintainability of the application or other
technicalities by recording defects in the application which include the
issue of limitation also, which was specifically framed by the learned
Additional District Judge.
10. In my opinion, even if, the issue was particularly not questioned by
the petitioner-ONGC, but, from the petition itself the learned Additional
District Judge ought to have held that the suit was barred by limitation
and, in that case, a formal application had to be made by the petitioner,
since, it has come to the knowledge of the court that there is no
application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act. Since, the petition under Section 10(2) of PMP Act was filed after
expiry of the period of limitation, the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge in Civil Misc. (PMP) 68 of 2014
stands set aside. However, the matter is remitted to the court of learned
Additional District Judge giving liberty to the respondents-land owners to
file appropriate application for condonation of delay and, thereafter, the
learned Additional District Judge shall decide the question of limitation in
accordance with law and shall proceed to dispose of the original suit from
the stage of argument.
11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition is
allowed, in the above terms and thus, disposed off.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
JUDGE
Saikat
