JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.7797/2017 and Mr. R Sarmah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.6290/2017. Also heard Ms. M Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively being the Government of Assam in the Revenue Department and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector Tinsukia and Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management (LR) Department, Government of Assam.

2. Certain land of the respondent No.3, Nandalal & Sons Tea Industries Private Ltd. of Chabua in WP(C)No.7797/2017, to be referred to as the land owner, had been taken over by the writ petitioner Oil India Ltd., sometime in the year 2000 for their own operational purpose. The issue raised by the land owner before the State respondent authorities is that no compensation as payable under the law had been paid to them by the petitioner OIL India Ltd., for their land having been taken over. The process resulted in an earlier proceeding being WP(C)No.1680/2002 and other writ petitions. In paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 05.04.2011 in WP(C)No.1680/2002 and other writ petitions, it has been provided as extracted:

“9. In course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the acquisition of the land if done, the compensation awardable would relate to the period on and from which the same is initiated by a notification under Section 4 of the Act and thus its claim with regard thereto for the period prior to such proceeding would remain unattended. In the above view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner company to lay it s claim vis a vis the land for the period on and from which its possession had been taken over by the Respondent OIL till the initiation of the land acquisition proceeding under the Act. If such a claim is made by the petitioner company, the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would take a decision thereon after hearing both the parties and strictly in accordance with law applicable thereto. This issue would be independent of the one for the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and would be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia parallely and completed within a period of three(3) months from the claim made by the petitioner.”

3. A reading of the afore-extracted paragraph 9 of the judgment dated 05.04.2011 in WP(C)No.1680/2002 and other writ petitions makes it discernible that the Division Bench had distinguished the period of taking over the land by the OIL India Ltd. into two parts. The first part being the stage prior to issuing of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894) and the other part being the period subsequent to issuing of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. In the premises, the Division Bench provided that the claim of the land owner for compensation for the period prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 being issued, the Deputy Commissioner Tinsukia would take a decision after hearing both the parties and strictly in accordance with the law applicable thereto. But the issue would be independent of the one for compensation under the Act of 1894. In other words, the Division Bench has made it explicitly clear that for the period prior to issuing of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, the Deputy Commissioner would take a decision on the amount of compensation that the land owner may be entitled to and such decision shall be independent of the compensation that is required to be paid under the Act of 1894.

4. In the process, the land owner Nandalal & Sons Tea Industries Private Ltd., instituted a subsequent writ petition being WP(C)No.587/2017 raising the issue of delayed payment by the writ petitioner Oil India Ltd., and whereas WP(C)No.5372/2013 was instituted by Oil India Ltd., raising the issue as regard