The limitation for filing a petition under Section 10(2) of the PMP Act would start from the date of receipt of substantive communication in writing from the competent authority along with the order awarding the compensation.

All these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CRP. 17 of 2016 [Sri Tarani Debbarma & Another. v. ONGC Ltd. and Others], CRP. 25 of 2016 [Sri Sunil Das v. ONGC Ltd. and Others], CRP. 34 of 2016 [Sri Priya Lal Debnathj v.ONGC Ltd. and Others], CRP. 46 of 2016 [Sri Samir Debbarma v. ONGC Ltd. and Others], CRP. 55 of 2016 [ONGC Ltd. and Others v. Shri Ramesh Das], CRP. 56 of 2016 [ONGC Ltd and Others v. Sri Monoranjan Debnath], CRP. 57 of 2016 [ONGC Ltd. and Others v. Shri Lab Kumar Debbarma & Another.] and CRP. 58 of 2016 [ONGC Ltd. and Others v. Shri Subhash Barman] are consolidated and clustered for disposal by a common judgment.

2. It is to be noted at the outset that CRP. No. 25 of 2016, CRP. No. 55 of 2016, CRP. No. 56 of 2016, CRP. No. 57 of 2016 and CRP. No. 58 of 2016, have been filed by the ONGC Ltd, the requiring agency and the remaining revision petitions have been filed by the persons from whom the right of user in land has been acquired in terms of provision of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines [Acquisition of Right of User in Land] Act, 1962.

3. All these revision petitions are structured on the questions viz:

(i) Whether the limitation as prescribed by Rule 5 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines [Acquisition of Right of User in Land] Rules 1963 would start from the day of incidence like receipt of payment or execution of indemnity bond in respect of the unfettered use of the land or for any other reasons or from the day when the person from whom right of user in land is acquired received the intimation from the competent authority under Rule 4(c) of the said Rules?

(ii) Whether the appreciation of evidence made by the District Judge suffers from manifest illegality warranting interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court?

4. Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the ONGC has submitted a list of dates from where it can be availed when the competent authority passed the award, when the person from whom right to user of land has been acquired had received the cheque, the date of filing the petition in the court of the District Judge under Section 10(2) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines [Acquisition of Right of User in Land] Act 1962 (for short, the PMP Act) and after how many days the petition under Section 10(2) of the said PMP Act was filed from the day of receipt of the cheque. The said information has not been contested by any one. Thus, it would be profitable if a table is made out of those information which then would be as under:

CRP No.	Name of parties	Date of award by the CA	Date of receipt of cheque	Date of filing Ptn under Section 10(2)	Time taken in filing Pts. Under Section 10(2) from receipt of cheque
17 of 2016	Tarini Debbarma & Another v. ONGC	28.06.2012	28.06.2012	16.02.2013	240 days (in place of 90 days)
34 of 2016	Priyalal Debnath v. ONGC	20.05.2011	20.05.2011	26.11.2012	632 days (in place of 90 days)
25 of 2016	ONGC vs. Sunil Das	05.12.2011	05.12.2011	26.11.2012	351 days (in place of 90 days)
55 of 2016	ONGC. Vs. Ramesh Das	28.06.12	28.06.2012	16.02.2013	237 days (in place of 90 days)
56 of 2016	ONGC vs. Monoranjan Das	10.05.2011	10.05.2011	26.11.2012	560 days (in place of 90 days)
57 of 2017	ONGC vs. Lab Debbarma & another	04.10.2012	15.10.2012	16.02.2013	123 days (in place of 90 days)
58 of 2016	ONGC. Vs. Subhash Barman	09.06.2012	18.06.2012	22.09.2012	95 days (in place of 90 days)

5. For purpose of decision, the fact and the impugned finding as challenged in each of the Civil Revision Petitions are required to be traversed separately. It is made clear that the issue relating to “intimation” and its nature thereof and the related questions that would emerge on application of Rule 5 of