Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ... vs Sri Nirmal Patwari
2021 Latest Caselaw 83 Tri

                                 1



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                          CRP 7/2021
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
                                                        ----Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus
Sri Nirmal Patwari
                                                     ----Respondent(s)

PRESENT For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumen Saha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 01/02/2021 Heard Mr. Soumen Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 16.03.2019 in case No. Civil Misc. (PMP) 55 of 2014 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The brief facts are that the petitioner-ONGC had acquired the land of the respondent, Sri Nirmal Patwari invoking the appropriate provision under Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines [Acquisition of Right of user in Land], 1962 (for short PMP Act). An award was made by the competent authority. Being aggrieved of that award, the respondent herein had filed an application under Section 10 of the PMP Act before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala for reassessing the market price of his land acquired by the petitioner- ONGC. It is stated that a land measuring 0.30 acres belonging to the petitioner under plot No. 1522/12050 of Mouja- Sreenagar was acquired by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India vide its notification dated 07.01.2011and the opposite party no. 4 i.e. the petitioner herein had granted compensation of Rs. 50,570/- for the standing tress as found therein and Rs. 2,625/- as 10% of prevailing market rate of the acquired land in favour of the respondent

herein. There was some delay in filing the petition under Section 10 of the Act before the learned District Judge by the petitioner herein. After hearing the petition the said delay was condoned by the learned District Judge. Thereafter, the learned District Judge proceeded to decide the suit. The petitioner-ONGC after receipt of the notice appeared before the learned District Judge through their appointed counsel. However, the petitioner-ONGC had filed written statement, but, it is submitted by Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner that incourse of recording evidence, the learned counsel could not appear before the learned court despite repeated opportunities and adjournments and subsequently, the evidences were recorded exparte in absence of the petitioner-ONGC. The learned Judge after considering the submission of the learned counsel and having considered the statement made in the written statement filed by the petitioner-ONGC has arrived at the following findings: "8. To establish entitlement of higher claim of award regarding rubber trees, the petitioner proved 5 numbers of memorandum/letter of Rubber Board viz. Exbt.1, Exbt.2, Exbt.3 and Exbt.5. As per memorandum dated 03.09.1996 of Managing Director, TFDPC Ltd. (Exbt.1), sale value of processed rubber was taken to be Rs.50 per kg. and capitalized value of per hectare of rubber plantation was assessed to be Rs.8,33,333/-. Said memorandum is not much helpful to us as it was mainly relating to capitalized value of rubber plantation of per hectare land, whereas we are trying to assess the value of each rubber tree on the basis of age of each tree. Another letter issued by Deputy Manager, TRPC Ltd. dated 29.04.2008 (Exbt.2) was also proved by the petitioner wherein some assessment was done for compensation of rubber plantation for the purpose of raising bill in favour of ONGC wherein valuation of total 438 numbers of affected trees were taken to be Rs.47,92,854/- with further interest of 6% per annum there upon and as it appears that the involved land area of such plantation was 17.97 kanis. The age of said rubber plantation was also not reflected therein and more so, land area was vast in that plantation, thus, same also cannot be safely relied upon to assess the compensation. Petitioner also proved another memorandum dated 5.10.2010 issued by Managing Director, TRPC (Exbt.2 series & 3) and in that memorandum while calculating the capitalized value of forest land supporting forest crops ultimately it was observed that the value of 1 rubber tree comes to Rs.7,143/- and it was mentioned that life span of rubber tree is normally 30 years and it starts production of latex from 7 years onwards and numbers of rubber tree per hectare was taken to be 420 for such assessment, which is also not similar to our case . The petitioner also proved another letter of Joint Rubber Production Commissioner addressed to Mr. Jhulan Chandra Das, Advocate on 11.4.2012 (Exbt.5) wherein a cost benefit analysis (per tree) as on December, 2011 applicable in NE region was annexed and from that chart (annexure) it is found

that up to 6 years of age no plantation is shown to start any yielding i.e. production of latex and from 7th year expected income from each rubber tree per year was assessed. Admittedly, the age of 27 numbers of rubber trees were 8 to 10 years. This being a beneficial provision enumerated in PMP Act, age of the rubber trees are being taken on the higher side of said range i.e. the age of rubber tree is being taken as 10 years. As per said cost benefit analysis report value of rubber tree of 10 years was shown to be Rs.8,500/- after considering development cost, the expected net income, salvage value, expected loss etc., whereas the O.P. No.4 has awarded only Rs.800/- per rubber tree to the petitioner which is much lesser than the prescribed rate as given in Exbt.5.

9. For 6 numbers of Jack-fruit trees (girth 3 feet) the opposite party no.4 has awarded Rs.750/- per tree. Similarly, for 12 numbers of gamair trees (girth 3 feet) the opposite party no.4 has awarded Rs.600/- per tree. Along with the same, for two numbers of rangi trees (girth 3 feet) and 19 numbers of teak trees (girth 3 feet to 3 feet 6 inches) opposite party no.4 has awarded Rs.540/- and Rs.800/- per tree respectively. To justify higher compensation for those trees, the petitioner proved one Forest Department Notification dated 12.09.1999 wherein value of teak tree, gamair tree etc. has been given as per unit 'cubic meter' and such rate has been assessed on the basis of round timber available therein. There is nothing in the record as to what was the volume of round timber of those trees in cubic meter unit. Situated thus, this Court is unable to assess the value of those trees on the basis of said notification under Exbt.4. However, in said notification value of one jeep trailer load of billet firewood has been given to be Rs.210/-. If those trees consits of at least 2 jeep trailor load of billet firewood, the value given by the O.P.no.4 is higher than the said amount. So, no further compensation can be awarded for those trees. However, regarding three numbers of Jack-fruit trees (not fruit bearing) the opposite party no.4 has awarded only Rs.100/- per tree whereas it can be safely held that for each of said trees at least there would be load of one jeep trailer of billet firewood. Considering this, Rs.210/- is allowed for each non fruit bearing Jack-fruit trees of three numbers. Similarly, the opposite party no.4 also awarded Rs.75/- for each gamair trees of two numbers, girth of which are mentioned to be 2 feet 6 inches. Seeing the measurement of girth of said 2 trees, it can be easily presumed that there would be at least two numbers of Jeep trailer load of billet firewood from each such trees and thus, Rs.420/- is allowed as value of each of such gamair tree. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, already said matter has been set at rest by condoning the delay in filing the petition. Thus, no further discussion is being made in respect of said issue.

10. Regarding issue of non joinder of necessary party, nothing has been agitated by the opposite parties and more-over, from the record, it appears that the compensation as assessed by the opposite party no.4, who has been made party in this case and user agency of the acquisition was the ONGC and they have also been made party. The petition is thus not bad for non joinder of necessary party. Thus, both the above said issue nos. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of the Petitioner. Issue Nos.3 and 4 are however partly allowed in view of enhancement of rate of some trees indicated above. Issue No.4 is also decided accordingly to the effect that except the above said enhanced rate, no further amount can be allowed to the petitioner".

Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that one legal question arises in this revision petition in respect of the fact that the learned District Judge did

not consider what happened to the uprooted trees. However, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the trees found over the land were all segun trees and those were very valuable trees. According to Mr. Saha, learned counsel, the uprooted trees were all allowed to be taken away by the respondent-land owner.

I have meticulously perused the judgment of the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge on fact has stated that the opposite parties i.e. the petitioner herein did not adduce any evidence and did not participate in the final argument of this case.

After perusal of the judgment, I find that the learned District Judge after considering the facts had assessed the valuation of the rubber trees and other trees which would increase time to time according to the age of such trees. The learned District Judge had also considered the fact that in the notification under Exhibit-4, the value of one jeep trailer load of billet firewood has to be given Rs. 210/- and, further held that if those trees consist of atleast two jeep trailor load of billet firewood, the value given by the opposite party no. 4 i.e. the petitioner herein is higher than the said amount. So, he did not grant any further compensation for those trees as was awarded by the competent authority (ROU), ONGC, Tripura Asset. Finally, the learned District Judge had passed an order that the petitioner was entitled to get compensation of Rs.8,500/- per rubber tree i.e. at the enhanced rate of Rs.7,700/- for total 27 nos. of rubber trees. It was further held by the learned District Judge that the land-owner, the respondent herein is also entitled to Rs.210/- per jack-fruit trees i.e. at the enhanced rate of Rs.110/- for total 3 nos. of such trees. The learned District Judge has further held that the respondent is entitled to Rs.420/- per gamai tree of girth 2 feet 6 inches i.e. at the enhanced rate of Rs.345/- for total 02 nos. of such trees. Having regard to the quantum of the enhanced compensation, I am of the view that the learned District Judge had arrived at a reasonable finding while enhancing the award against the trees, as aforementioned. It is settled law

that the power of superintendence of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and to be exercised sparingly. In my opinion, this is not an appropriate case to interfere with the order of the learned District Judge. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Saikat