The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Act of 2013 for land acquisition proceedings and the obligation of ONGC to make payments in accordance with Section 19 of the Act.

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. These petitions arise in similar background. All the petitioners are owners of agriculture lands situated in village Mansa and nearby villages. Their lands have been occupied by ONGC since several years for the purpose of oil exploration and extraction under different agreements/understandings. The land owners receive rent from ONGC. These petitioners, however, contend that the ONGC cannot occupy their lands indefinitely without acquisition.

2. Necessary facts may be noted from Special Civil Application No. 7993 of 2015. Different petitioners own different parcels of land in Mansa which the ONGC required for oil exploration. The ONGC, therefore, entered into an agreement dated 22.08.2007 titled as "Possession Receipt and Agreement". Under such agreement, the land owners handed over possession of the lands to ONGC. The agreement provided that the ONGC would enjoy the possession and continue to remain in possession until land acquisition proceedings of the land under the Land Acquisition Act are completed or till ONGC itself returns the land back to the owners. It was further provided that the rent shall be determined through the competent Revenue Officer and the rent for the first three years shall be paid through such Officer, after which, ONGC would directly pay the rent to the land owners. Clause 5 of the agreement provided that the ONGC would pay rent at the rate of Rs. 7.50 per sq.mtrs or Rs. 750/- per Are per annum. It was, further provided that in the beginning of the first three years, if oil is found and the extraction is likely to be successful for a long period, the land would be acquired and the ONGC would pay regular rent every year until completion of the proceedings for acquisition of the land on permanent basis.

3. Case of the petitioners is that, since 2007, the ONGC is occupying such lands by paying a meager amount of rent without acquiring the same. According to the petitioners, the ONGC should either acquire the land permanently, if so required or, vacate the same and handover possession to the petitioners but, at any rate, cannot for indefinite period enjoy the use and occupation of the land by paying a meager amount of rent.

4. The petitioners further point out that the ONGC did request the State authorities to commence the acquisition proceedings and, in pursuance of the same, entered into an agreement. As per such agreement ONGC would deposit with the Government, a portion of the probable compensation for the lands in question, upon which, the Government would proceed to acquire the land for and on behalf of the ONGC. However, the ONGC, later on, sought to be back out from such commitment. Petitioners would bring to our notice a letter dated 23.02.2015 written by the Government to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in which, referring to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, required the Special Land Acquisition Officer to take further steps after the ONGC deposited the agreed amount. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that, now, the ONGC is refusing to deposit such amount and thus, the entire acquisition proceedings are in jeopardy.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Saurabh Soparkar vehemently contended that, the ONGC cannot occupy the lands of the petitioners indefinitely by paying a meager amount of rent. The ONGC could either acquire the land or would have to return the possession of the land to the petitioners and, at any rate, in the interregnum, the ONGC must pay reasonable rent. He pointed out that the land value, even according to the Government rates, runs into crores of rupees and such lands are occupied by ONGC by paying rent, which is extremely low. Counsel further submitted that the ONGC must be held to the terms of the agreement and should be directed to deposit the money with the Government as per the said agreement dated 18.06.2014.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Mihir Thakore for ONGC submitted that, the rent, which was initially f