Oil And Natural Gas Corporation ... vs Smt. Santibala Roy
2022 Latest Caselaw 982 Tri

                                       1



                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                          CRP No.79 of 2022

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
                                                        -----Petitioner(s)

                                 Versus
Smt. Santibala Roy
                                                      -----Respondent(s)

                                BEFORE

           HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

For the Petitioner(s)           : Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.
                                  Mr. Soumen Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)           : Mr. J.P.Saha, Adv.


                                ORDER

24.11.2022

[1] By means of filing this Civil Revision Petition, Oil and

Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC, for short) being petitioner, has

challenged the judgment and order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the

learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil. Misc.(PMP)54 of

2014.

[2] The relevant facts, necessary for disposal of this petition,

are as follows:

Smt. Santibala Roy, original claimant who is the

respondent herein planted 69 Rubber trees and 250 bamboo trees on a

plot of land owned by her in plot Nos. 705, 893, 1032 and 1033 under

Khatian No.1118 in Madhupur Mouja under Bishalgarh subdivision. For

laying pipelines for transportation of natural gas to the Palatana

project, the petitioner Corporation came out with a gazette notification

dated 22.10.2010 under sub-section(1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962

(PMP Act, for short) to acquire the right of user in the said land. After

required survey and hearing of objections, gas pipelines were laid

under the said land of the claimant respondent.

[3] The competent authority defined under Section 2(a) of the

PMP Act, determined compensation payable to the claimant respondent

in exercise of power conferred under Section 10(1) of the PMP Act for

the loss sustained by the claimant respondent due to acquisition of the

right of user in the said land of her and laying gas pipelines under the

land. The said competent authority determined compensation at the

rate of Rs.148 for each of the 67 rubber trees and Rs.30/- for each of

the bamboo trees and Rs.750/- for the single Segun tree. A total

amount of Rs.22,876/- was thus determined by the competent

authority for payment to the land owner (the respondent herein) as

compensation.

[4] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said amount

of compensation determined by the competent authority, Smt.

Santibala Roy being the petitioner, filed an application before the court

of Learned District Judge, West Tripura Judicial District for

determination of fair compensation in terms of sub-section (2) of

Section 10 of the PMP Act.

[5] After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge by his

judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed in Civil Misc.(PMP) No.54

of 2014, enhanced the amount of compensation for each of the 67

rubber trees from Rs.148 to Rs.5506. But, for the bamboo trees and

the Segun tree, compensation determined by the competent authority

was not changed. The learned District Judge required the petitioner

Corporation to pay the said compensation to the claimant land owner

(respondent herein) within a period of 60 days from the date of his

judgment and to pay 6% annual interest, if the order is not complied

with within 60 days.

[6] The petitioner Corporation (ONGC) challenged the said

judgment dated 16.02.2017 rendered by the learned District Judge by

filing a Civil Revision Petition[CRP 12 of 2021] before this High Court

which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated

06.04.2021.

[7] Since it was agitated by the petitioner before the learned

Single Judge that the claim was time barred and the learned District

Judge entertained the claim without condonation of delay, the learned

Single Judge remanded the matter back to the trial court for re-

determination of compensation after deciding the issue raised by the

petitioner Corporation on the point of limitation. The respondent land

owner on whose application the learned District Judge had passed the

award was directed to submit an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act before the learned District Judge. It would be appropriate

to reproduce the relevant extract of the said order of the learned Single

Judge which reads as under:

"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 28.05.2013, whereas, the competent authority determined the compensation vide award dated 20.02.2012. 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 16.02.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, it reveals that while deciding the case, the learned 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 District Judge.

10. In view of the fact that no formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the respondent-land owners while filing the application under Section 10(2) of the PMP Act, before the learned District Judge, in my opinion, the matter should be remitted to the court of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala giving an opportunity to the respondent- land owners to file a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 10 of the PMP Act for re-determination of the compensation. Having received the application for condonation of delay, the learned district Judge shall decide the merits of the application in accordance with law and, thereafter, shall hear the argument of both the parties on merits of the suit.

11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition is allowed, in the above terms and thus, disposed off.

......................................................................................................"

[8] Pursuant to the direction of this court, the claimant

respondent (land owner) filed a petition under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condonation of 372 days' delay in filing the

application under Section 10(2) of the PMP Act seeking determination

of compensation. The said petition was registered in the Court of the

learned District Judge, West Tripura at Agartala as Civil Misc.

(Condonation) 15 of 2021 and the learned District Judge by a detailed

order dated 11.03.2022 allowed the petition by condoning delay in filing

the appeal.

[9] Thereafter, as directed by this Court by order dated

06.04.2021 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.12 of 2021, the learned

District Judge proceeded for re-determination of compensation and

finally by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2022 passed

in Civil Misc.(PMP)54 of 2014, re-determined the compensation at the

rate of Rs.7,000/- for each of the 67 Rubber trees and Rs.50/- for each

of the 250 Barak bamboo trees. Compensation of Rs.750/- was

awarded for the single Segun tree. The relevant extract of the

impugned judgment dated 29.03.2022 reads as follows:

"13(d). The petitioner in order to substantiate her aforesaid claim has adduced exhibits 1,2,3,4 and 7 which are different orders and memorandums issued by Tripura Forest Development Plantation Corporation Limited, Tripura Rehabilitation

Plantation Corporation Limited and Ministry of Commerce and Industry Govt. of India. The petitioner in her application did not mention the exact age group of the rubber trees which were damaged. However, the incident in this case took place in the year 2011 and in this respect if we go by the memorandum dated 5.10.2010 marked as Exbt. 3 it is found that the value of one rubber tree is calculated @ Rs.7,143/- and the rubber trees of the petitioner were damaged in the year 2011 and it is expected that the price of a rubber tree has increased within one year time. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation @ Rs.7,000/- for each of the rubber tree.

13(e). In addition the petitioner has claimed that 250 nos. of barak bamboo trees were damaged and she is claiming Rs.200/- as compensation for each of the barak bamboo tree. The O.Ps on their part stated that they paid Rs.30/- as compensation for each barak bamboo tree. Having considered the aforesaid claim and the counter claim in respect to price of each barak bamboo tree, I am of the view that the compensation given by the OP side @ Rs.30/- per tree was on the lower side. I consider that compensation @Rs.50/- for each barak bamboo will be appropriate.

13(f). So far one number of segun tree is concerned the petitioner was given compensation of Rs.750/- and it appears to be appropriate and need no interference.

Accordingly, all the three points are answered in affirmative.

ORDER

In the result, the application of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation is allowed, It is directed that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation @Rs.7000/- per rubber tree. She is also entitled to get compensation @Rs.50/- per barak bamboo tree. The compensation shall be paid within a period of sixty days from today. The amount already paid, if any, shall be deducted from the total compensation. If OP side failed to pay the compensation within the stipulated time of sixty days, the amount of compensation will carry interest @7% per annum from the date of this order till payment. "

[10] As stated, the petitioner Corporation has challenged the

said judgment and order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned

District Judge in case No. Civil Misc.(PMP) 54 of 2014 by filing the

present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

[11] Heard Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, learned Sr. Advocate

appearing along with Mr. Soumen Saha, learned advocate, for the

petitioner.

Also heard Mr. J.P.Saha, learned counsel, representing the

claimant respondent.

[12] Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has

mainly contended that the District Judge, West Tripura lacks territorial

jurisdiction in deciding the matter because the land in which the gas

pipelines have been laid falls under the jurisdiction of the District Judge

of Sepahijala Judicial District. Learned counsel has relied on 02 orders

of this Court one of which is dated 26.03.2021 passed by the learned

Single Judge in CRP 45 of 2020 and the other is dated 22.03.2022

passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CRP 71 of 2021.

[13] Counsel submits that in both of these similar matters, this

Court dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge

(West) in entertaining application for determination of compensation

under Section 10 of the PMP Act and it was held by this Court that the

District Judge, West Tripura lacked territorial jurisdiction since the land

in which the pipelines were laid situate within the jurisdiction of

Sepahiala Judicial District. Counsel submits that after creation of

Sepahijala Judicial District, the High Court by notification dated

24.07.2018 transferred all matters pertaining to the acquisition of right

of user in the said land to the court of the District Judge of Sepahijala

Judicial District since the land situate under the jurisdiction of the

District Judge of Sepahijala Judicial District. It is submitted by the

counsel that in view of the said notification dated 24.07.2018 and the

orders of this Court passed in CRP 45 of 2020 and CRP 71 of 2021 as

referred to, the learned District Judge, West Tripura had no territorial

jurisdiction to try and decide the matter. Learned counsel further

contends that the impugned judgment calls for interference also on the

ground that the amount of compensation was re-determined by the

learned District Judge without giving an opportunity to the petitioner

Corporation to adduce evidence. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to

allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned judgment.

[14] Mr.J.P.Saha, learned counsel on the other hand submits

that never there was a fair determination of compensation payable to

the claimant respondent for the loss sustained by her on account of

laying of gas pipelines in her land. Counsel contends that the petitioner

who is a 91 years' old woman, has been fighting this legal battle with

the petitioner Corporation for the last 8 years to realize the

compensation payable to her. The counsel of the claimant further

submits that the learned District Judge passed the impugned judgment

dated 29.03.2022 in terms of the direction issued by this High Court by

order dated 06.04.2021 passed in CRP 12 of 2021. If, at this juncture,

the claim of the petitioner Corporation with regard to territorial

jurisdiction is entertained, the ends of justice would be defeated.

Counsel, therefore, urges for dismissing the Civil Revision Petition.

[15] The objection raised by the petitioner Corporation with

regard to territorial jurisdiction is not entertainable at this stage

because in CRP 12 of 2021 preferred against the earlier judgment

dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura,

Agartala the petitioner Corporation raised the only issue of limitation.

This Court by order dated 06.04.2021 in CRP 12 of 2021 directed the

learned District Judge(West Tripura) to decide the issue of limitation if

a petition for condonation of delay is filed by the claimant and

thereafter, to re-determine the compensation payable to the claimant.

The learned District Judge seems to have followed the said directions of

this Court in letter and spirit. By a detailed order he determined the

issue of limitation and after condonation of delay he has passed a

detailed and reasoned judgment in the case on 29.03.2022 which has

been impugned before this Court.

[16] There is no controversy over the issue that gas pipelines

were laid by the petitioner Corporation under the land owned by the

claimant respondent for which she lost 67 Rubber trees 01 Segun tree

and 250 Barak bamboo trees. The determination of compensation made

by the competent authority having not been acceptable to her, she filed

an application before the learned District Judge in the year 2013 which

was decided by a judgment rendered on 16.02.2017. On a challenge

made by the petitioner Corporation, this Court remanded the matter to

the District Judge for re-determination of compensation after deciding

the question with regard to limitation. After the District Judge has again

decided the matter on a fresh consideration by the impugned judgment

delivered on 29.03.2022, the petitioner Corporation has again

challenged the said judgment on new grounds, which, if entertained,

will defeat the ends of justice. It would appear from the impugned

judgment that the learned District Judge has dealt with all the points

which have been raised by the counsel of the parties in detail. For

determination of the price of the trees, the learned District Judge relied

on the evidence adduced by the parties and determined the loss in

terms of those evidence. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner

that the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation without

providing any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence is devoid

of merit.

[17] In this view of the matter, the revision petition stands

rejected. The petitioner Corporation is directed to deposit the whole

amount of compensation in terms of the impugned order dated

29.03.2022 with the Registry of this Court within a period of 4 weeks

from today after deducting the amount, already paid by the petitioner

Corporation, if any. On such deposit, the Registry will disburse the

amount of compensation to the respondent Smt.Santibala Roy by

transferring the same to her account on verification of the authenticity

of the account. Since the claimant respondent is stated to be 91 years'

old, her personal appearance before the Registry for verification of her

identity may not be insisted upon.

[18] In terms of the above, the Civil Revision Petition stands

disposed of.

JUDGE

Saikat Sarma