IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Mastopha Ahmed S/o. Late Moktar Ahmed @ Moktar Ali - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 6038 of 2021
Decided On : 25-05-2023
Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 - Section 11(5) , 14 - Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 - Section 80 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Demanding payment of full compensation - Dispute involved relates inaction on part of respondent authorities more particularly - Whether respondent competent authority i.e. respondent no.4 was justified in not making reference in terms with Section 11(5) of Act of 1962 - Section 14 of Act of 1962 clearly shows that there is a bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect to various aspects including in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred under Act of 1962.(Para 17).
Finding of the Court: Court is of opinion that in view of dispute which had arisen, Court is not in a position to decide said dispute and it would involve intricate details of evidence - It would be in the interest of justice that competent authority makes a reference to District Judge in so far as the entitlement of petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no.5. District Judge can very well decide as regards veracity of claims and counterclaims so made by the petitioner as well the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 and also take into consideration the stand of the respondent no.5
Result: Writ petition disposed off.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S. Alim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent no.1 on call. Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4.
2. Taking into account the matter involved, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the Motion stage itself.
3. As the dispute involved herein relates inaction on the part of the respondent authorities more particularly, the competent authority in not exercising the powers under Section 11(5) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1962”, notice upon the respondent no.5 is dispensed with.
4. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner claims to be the grandson of one Bahar Ali since deceased, who was the original Pattadar of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 17 Lechas covered by Dag No.663 of Patta No.124 situated at Revenue Village No.1 Dobak under Pub Borigog Mouza in the District of Kamrup, Assam. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the death of the petitioner’s grandfather Late Bahar Ali, the names of his four sons namely (i) Moktar Ahmed (father of the petitioner), (ii) Firoz Ali, (iii) Fayez Ali and (iv) Fokhruddin Ali Ahmed being the legal heirs of Late Bahar Ali were duly mutated against the said plot of land vide order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the concerned Circle Officer. Under such circumstances, it is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner became a co-owner in respect to the entire land of Dag no.663 measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 17 Lechas and his share would be something more than 1 Katha 14 Lechas.
5. It further appears on record that a Notification SO No.5321 dated 10th October, 2018 was issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas of the Government of India on 16th October, 2018, whereby in public interest the right to use of various plots of land was to be acquired for laying of the Barauni-Guwahati Gas Pipeline by GAIL (India) Limited for transportation of gas. The said acquisition was to be done in terms with the provisions of the Act of 1962. Pursuant thereto, individual notices were issued to the various Pattadars including the petitioner herein as would be seen from Anenxure-3 to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.02.2021, one Fayez Ali along with his sons obtained certain signatures by threatening him. Thereupon the petitioner submitted an application to the competent authority on 20.03.2021 stating inter-alia, that he has a right to the compensation in respect of Dag No.663 which also belonged to his father.
6. It further appears from the records that on 04.07.2021, a Legal Notice was issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure demanding payment of full compensation to the petitioner in respect to his entitlement in so far as Dag No.663 within period of 15 (fifteen) days.
7. To the said Legal Notice so issued by the petitioner, on 16.07.2021 the respondent competent authority through it’s Lawyer had replied to the same stating inter-alia, that the order dated 20.03.2021 was passed by the competent authority upon hearing all the parties including the petitioner wherein the petitioner agreed for releasing the compensation in favour of the respondent no.5 herein. It was further stated that written consent was given by the petitioner to release the compensation in favour of the respondent no.5. It further stated that the No Objection Certificate was also given by the petitioner and the compensation has been disbursed by the competent authority upon receipt of the stated documents.
8. It further appears that after receipt of the reply to the Legal Notice by the petitioner, on 01.08.2021 an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Dobok Police Station narrating the incident dated 24.02.2021. Accordingly, a case was registered being Rangia P.S. Case No.806/2021 under Section 506/420 IPC. Subsequent ther
Indemnity Bond is given for a purpose that if at any later point of time a dispute arises, the person receiving the amount shall indemnify the competent authority.
The authority becomes functus officio after determining compensation apportionment, and cannot refer disputes to the District Judge post-disbursement.
when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be entertained ignoring the statutory prescription, m....
The availability of a statutory remedy under the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines [Acquisition of Right of User in Land] Act, 1962 for redressal of grievances regarding compensation for land acquisiti....
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
Disputes regarding compensation apportionment for land acquisition must be resolved by the Principal Civil Court, not through writ jurisdiction, when an alternative remedy exists.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of the proposal for settlement by the respondent authority to a substantial extent and the non-precedential nature of the resolut....
Determination of compensation under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act must be fair and considers evidence presented, with jurisdictional objections not permissible after acceptance in previous....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.