Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ... vs Sri Chotan Barman
2021 Latest Caselaw 84 Tri

                                 1



                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                         CRP 10/2021
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
                                                          ----Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus
Sri Chotan Barman
                                                        ----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 06.02.2019 in case No. Civil Misc. (PMP) 26 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 Chotan Debbarma 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 0.14 acres belonging to the petitioner under plot No. 7520 of Mouja- Anandanagar was acquired by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India vide its notification dated 22.09.1999 and the opposite party no. 4 i.e. the petitioner herein had granted compensation of Rs. 51,125/- for the standing tress as found therein as prevailing market rate of the acquired land in favour of the respondent herein.

Mr. Saha, learned counsel has argued that the learned District Judge did not consider that the application under Section 10 of the PMP Act was not filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under the Act. Having perused the judgment, I do not find that the petitioner-ONGC had pressed this point at any point of time before the learned District Judge. In view of the above observation of the learned District Judge, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-ONGC to entertain his submission by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I repel the submission of Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner- ONGC. 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 valuable trees. According to Mr. Saha, learned counsel, the uprooted trees were all allowed to be taken away by the respondent-land owner. After perusal of the judgment, I find that the learned District Judge while 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 to be of 30 years. Finally, the learned District Judge had passed an order that the land owners i.e. the respondents herein are entitled to get enhanced compensation @Rs. 7,000/- per segun trees for 55 nos. of segun trees having girth of 90 cm to 120 cm. It was further held by the learned District Judge that the land owners i.e. the respondents herein are entitled to get enhanced compensation @Rs. 6,000/- per segun trees for 15 nos. of segun trees having girth of 60 cm to 90 cm.

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 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