Tripura High Court
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ... vs Smt. Satyamoni Debbarma And Anr on 1 February, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP 8/2021
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Satyamoni Debbarma and anr.
----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 11.07.2019 in case No. Civil Misc. (PMP) 49 of
2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Sepahijala, Bishalgarh.
The brief facts are that the petitioner-ONGC had acquired the land of the
respondents, Sri Satya Mani Debbarma and Smt. Subha Laxmi 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 0.65 acres belonging to the petitioner under plot No. 4988
and 4984/10070 of Mouja- Pravapur was acquired by the Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India vide its notification dated
12.08.2011 and the opposite party no. 4 i.e. the petitioner herein had granted
compensation of Rs. 4,32,676/- for the standing tress as found therein and
Rs. 83,325/- 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.
After perusal of the judgment of the learned District Judge, I find the
following observation:
"After receiving the case record notice was issued upon both the parties and ld.
Counsel for both the parties appeared and record was fixed for cross
examination of the aforesaid OPWs. But inspite of getting several opportunities
the OPW did not appear and the opposite parties remained absent without any
step and accordingly the case proceeded exparte against them.
Finally the argument of the claimant petitioners' side was heard at length and I
placed by decision on the aforesaid issues".
It was further observed by the learned District Judge that:
"During proceeding of this case the OPWs did not raise any question regarding
maintainability of any application or other technical points regarding defect in
the application.
Therefore, it can safely concluded that the present application under Section 10
of the Act is very much maintainable and it is not barred by limitation or due to
non joinder or misjoinder of parties.
Accordingly, all the three issues are answered in affirmative".
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
and depending on the circumstances and market rate. Finally, the learned
District Judge had passed an order that the land owners i.e. the respondents
herein are entitled to get compensation of Rs.12,60,000/- for the rubber trees
i.e. at the enhanced rate of Rs.10,000/- for total 126 nos. of rubber trees. It
was further held by the learned District Judge that the land-owners, the
respondents herein are also entitled to Rs.22,000/- for segun trees i.e. at the
enhanced rate of Rs.2,000/- for total 11 nos. of such trees. The learned
District Judge has further held that the respondents are entitled to Rs.6,000/-
for jackfruit trees i.e. at the enhanced rate of Rs.1,500/- for total 04 nos. of
such trees. The learned District Judge has also held that the respondents are
entitled to Rs.12,750/- for banana trees i.e. at the enhanced rate of Rs.250/-
for total 51 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 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
