Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.H.NASIR, P.B.MISHRA, P.S.MISHRA
Gas Authority of India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority and Special Deputy Collector, Gas Authority of India Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-11-97
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article, 226 - Acquisition of Right of User in Land)Act ,1962 - Section 3 - Pay compensation for damage - enquiry - Petitioner-appellant statutory authority - In process of laying gas pipelines from Kakinada covering a distance of during alleged certain lands belonging to respondents were involved - It appears after declaration Section and the process of laying pipelines commenced competent authority issued notices to all land owners calling upon them to file their claim petitions either personally or through their advocates for compensation - According to petitioner-appellant competent authority determined the compensation payable each of owners and owners were also paid compensation - It stated however then competent authority retired from service attaining age of superannuation one of respondents submitted representation to Chairman and Managing Director of appellant-Company and alleged that compensation fixed by competent authority was inadequate and procedure adopted by him in fixing compensation was improper –Held, Court provisions thus have been made to pay compensation for any damage loss or injury to such person who is interested in land which pipeline proposed be or being or has been laid and power to decide with respect to compensation is given to competent authority who as we have already seen is person or authority authorised by Central Government by notification in official gazette perform functions authority competent Act - If amount of compensation determined by authority not acceptable to any party he/she is given the right to make application to the District Judge within limits whose jurisdiction land or any part thereof is situated and the District Judge is empowered to decide upon the same and his decision is final - It thus seen that wholesome scheme is provided Act for determination of compensation and a party aggrieved by amount compensation determined by competent authority is given right to make application to the District Judge and take the District Judge decision on - When we advert of case Court can see that competent authority did order and some compensation paid which appears was not accepted as satisfactory and final by one of respondents here in single Judge has also accepted it sound principle of law that statutory authority or Tribunal cannot review or reopen any order made - Power to review always granted to such authorities by express provision of law - They do not have inherent power to review their acts or orders as Courts possess - No statute has been brought to our notice which competent authority Act is empowered review or reopen his own act or order - If successors-in-office start finding fault with the acts of predecessors-in-- office and start reopening all that predecessors have done will impossible to limit recall order of one successor of order by his predecessor - incumbent competent authority has chosen to review order - If he can do his successor can also do same to his orders - Act has taken care provide for protes to amount of compensation by competent authority by way of an application to District Judge and has made order of District Judge passed incumbent competent authority indeed in nature of order of review of order Law does not empower any such review - In sum difficult accept case of respondents that have been paid ad hoc compensation only - Even if their case that they have been paid only the ad hoc compensation is accepted they had remedy of making application to District Judge and not to Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant company – Appeal allowed
( 1 ) THIS appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court, has arisen in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner-appellant herein, Gas Authority of India Limited, has filed the petition questioning the order of the competent authority under the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 in respect of determination of compensation to the land owners.
( 2 ) THE petitioner-appellant is a statutory authority. In the process of laying gas pipelines from Tatipaka to Kakinada, covering a distance of 103 K. Ms. during the year 1990-91, it is alleged, certain lands belonging to respondents 2 to 186 were involved. It appears, after declaration under Section 6 and the process of laying pipelines commenced, the competent authority under the Act issued notices to all the land owners calling upon them to file their claim petitions, either personally or through their advocates for compensation. According to the petitioner-appellant, the competent authority determined the compensation payable to each of the owners and owners were also paid compensation. It is stated, however, that the then competent authority, Ch. Venkateswara Rao, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-11-1992. On 1-12-1992, one of the respondents, V. V. Satya-narayana Raju submitted a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant-Company and alleged that compensation fixed by the competent authority was inadequate and the procedure adopted by him in fixing the compensation was improper. He made yet another representation on 27-4-1993 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant-company which representation was forwarded to the competent authority under the Act. Successor incumbent Smt. K. Suneetha submitted a report to the Senior Manager of the appellant that delermination of compensation by her predecessor-in-office was in order and justified. Satyanarayana Raju submitted a fresh representation on 28-10-1993 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant. This time also the Chairman and Managing Director forwarded the representation to the competent authority. Smt. K. Suneetha, however, has since relinquished office and Sri G. Nagendra Rao, the new incumbent, submitted a report dated 28-12-1993 to the Senior Manager of the appellant stating that his predecessor, Mr. Venkateswara Rao had not. determined compensation and money paid to the owners was only ad hoc compensation for the damages caused to the crops. He also opined that the rates of compensation paid to the owners was very much on lower side and he tentatively determined the compensation at Rs. 4,608. 00 per tree. In the said communication, he also said that he was proceeding with the award enquiry for the purpose of determining proper compensation payable to the land owners. By further communication dated 22-4-1994, Sri G. Nagendra Rao pointed out that before proceeding to determine the compensation, it was necessary to have dates of termination of operation so that he could proceed further for determination of the compensation under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. By another letter dated 27-5-1994, Sri G. Nagendra Rao, while informing the authority that the compensation had to be determined after conducting enquiry as required under-Section 10 of the Act, requested the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1. 67 crore as per the request contained in his letter dated 28-12-1993. This, however, was replied by the Senior Manager of the appellant and a request was made to the competent authority to drop all further proceedings as compensation was already determined and the owners had received the compensation amount. Sri G. Nagendra Rao, had, however, relinquished office and the new incumbent Sri B. Srinivasulu had succeeded him. Sri Srini-vasulu replied to the comrnunication from the Senior Manager of the appellant dated 9-1-1995 that the action by his immedi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
