Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors. – Petitioners
VERSUS
Shri Biplab Deb Roy, son of late Rabindra Ch. Deb Roy & Ors. – Respondents
CRP. No. 12, 54, 59, 12 of 2016, 142, 50, 54 of 2015
Decided On : 29-09-2016
PETROLEUM AND MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 - SECTION 10(2) AND (3) - LIMITATION - RULE 5 OF THE PETROLEUM AND MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) RULES 1963 - ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES OR LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE PERSON INTERESTED IN THE LAND - SECTION 10(3) OF THE ACT - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE AND EXTENT.
Fact of the Case:
Several petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgments of the District Judge in determining the compensation for damages or loss sustained by the persons interested in the land acquired for laying pipelines under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (PMP Act). The main issues raised in the petitions were: (i) whether the applications filed under Section 10(2) and (3) of the PMP Act were barred by limitation by operation of Rule 5 of the PMP Rules, which provides a limitation period of 90 days from the receipt of the intimation from the competent authority; (ii) whether the assessment of damages or loss sustained by the person interested in the land as made by the District Judge was within the limit prescribed by Section 10(3) of the PMP Act; and (iii) whether these petitions were maintainable within the jurisdictional limits of Article 227 of the Constitution, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954 SC 215.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that: (i) The limitation period of 90 days under Rule 5 of the PMP Rules starts from the date when the person interested in the land receives the intimation or communication regarding the award passed by the competent authority. Mere knowledge of the order or receipt of money from the corporation or the Government would not suffice. The intimation should contain the relevant facts and reasons for the determination of compensation. (ii) The assessment of damages or loss sustained by the person interested in the land under Section 10(3) of the PMP Act is not akin to the determination of compensation under Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The factors and elements considered for determining compensation under the PMP Act are different from those under the Land Acquisition Act. (iii) The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. It can interfere with the findings of fact of an inferior court or tribunal only in cases where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion reached by the court or tribunal. Except to this limited extent, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of facts.
Issues: 1. Whether the applications filed under Section 10(2) and (3) of the PMP Act were barred by limitation by operation of Rule 5 of the PMP Rules? 2. Whether the assessment of damages or loss sustained by the person interested in the land as made by the District Judge was within the limit prescribed by Section 10(3) of the PMP Act? 3. Whether these petitions were maintainable within the jurisdictional limits of Article 227 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The limitation period of 90 days under Rule 5 of the PMP Rules starts from the date when the person interested in the land receives the intimation or communication regarding the award passed by the competent authority. Mere knowledge of the order or receipt of money from the corporation or the Government would not suffice. The intimation should contain the relevant facts and reasons for the determination of compensation. 2. The assessment of damages or loss sustained by the person interested in the land under Section 10(3) of the PMP Act is not akin to the determination of compensation under Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The factors and elements considered for determining compensation under the PMP Act are different from those under the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. It can interfere with the findings of fact of an inferior court or tribunal only in cases where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion reached by the court or tribunal. Except to this limited extent, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of facts.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitions being CRP No. 12 of 2016, CRP. No. 50 of 2015, CRP 54 of 2015, CRP No. 54 of 2016, and CRP 59 of 2016. However, the petition being CRP. No. 142 of 2015 was allowed. The judgment dated 24.09.2015 passed in Civil Misc (PMP) 34 of 2014 was quashed, and the case was remanded for re-adjudication.
1. All these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CRP. 12 of 2016 [Smt. Anita Barman v. ONGC Ltd. and Others], CRP. 142 of 2015 [ONGC Ltd. And Others v. Sri Biplab Debroy and Others], CRP. 50 of 2015 [ONGC Ltd. and Others v. Najen Marak and Others], CRP. 54 of 2015 [ONGC Ltd. and Others v. Amarchad Debnath and Another], CRP. 54 of 2016 [ONGC Ltd. And Others v. Pranay Bhusan Debnath] and CRP. 59 of 2016 [ONGC Ltd and Others v. Sri Chandra Sekhar Debnath] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as either the claimants or the requiring agency have questioned the judgments on certain common aspects viz,
(A) whether the application filed under Section 10 (2) and (3) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act was barred by limitation by operation Rule 5 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, which provides as follows:
“5.Application to the District Judge for determination of compensation- Any party aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation may prefer an application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction of land or any part thereof is situated, not later than ninety days of the receipt of the limitation from the competent authority under rule 4(3)”.
(B) Whether the assessment of damages or loss sustained by the person interested in the land as made by the District Judge is within the limit as prescribed by Section 10(3) of the Act which postulates as under:
(3) The competent authority or the District Judge while determining the compensation under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section 92), as the case may be, shall have due regard to the damage or loss sustained by any person interested in the land by reason of
(i) The removal of tress or standing crops, if any, on the land while exercising the powers under Section 4, Section 7 or Section 8;
(ii) The temporary severance of the land under which the pipeline has been laid from other lands belonging to, or in the occupation of, such person; or
(iii) Any injury to any other property, whether movable or immovable or the earnings of such persons caused in any other manner:
Provided that in determining the compensation no account shall be taken of any structure or other improvement made in the land after the date of the notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3, and
(C) whether these petitions are maintainable within the jurisdictional limits of Article 227 of the Constitution exercise of which power is regulated broadly by the following principles:
(a) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as restrained on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(b) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard, the High Court would required to follow the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, [AIR 1954 SC 215] as the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.
(c) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra) , followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts su8bordinate to it, ‘within the bounds of their authority’.
(d) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
