Fair compensation must be determined under the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Act, with proper notice given to claimants, as established in this case.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed in Civil Misc (PMP) 38 of 2014 between Sri Sadhan Debnath, Claimant-petitioner and the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 3 others, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge, Sipahijala, Bishalgarh, fixed compensation for 110 nos. of rubber trees in question of 8 to 10 years old @ Rs. 9000 per tree and 50 nos. of rubber trees of 16 to 20 years old @ Rs. 5000/- per tree. The petitioners also preferred this application for exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court against the Order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sipahijala, Bishalgarh in Civil Misc.(PMP) No. 38 of 2014 between Sri Sadhan Debnath claimant-petitioner and the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 3 others respondents, whereby and whereunder the learned Addl. District Judge, Sipahijal, Bishalgarh fixed compensation for 110 nos in question of Rubber Trees for 8-10 years old @ Rs. 9000/- per tree and 50 nos of rubber trees for 16-20 years old @ Rs. 5000/- per tree in violation of the provisions of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962 (P&MP Act, 1962) and the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1962.

2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of Civil Misc (PMP) 38 of 2014. The genesis of the case is that he is the possessor of the land under plot no. 1418(p) under khatian no. 163 of Mouja Radhanagar measuring 0.50 acres of land and he was enjoying the possession of the land by planting rubber trees and other valuable trees including fruits by investing good amount of money. On 02.03.11 gazette notification was made by the Respondents for acquiring 0.50 acres of land appertaining to the aforesaid plot in possession of the claimant petitioner for the purpose of laying down of gas pipe line for the use of Thermal Project in Palatana, Udaipur of the then South Tripura District, now Gomati District as per provision of section 3(1) of the Act and as per provision of Section 5(1)(2) of the Act objection was invited from the claimant petitioner against the aforesaid acquisition and the claimant petitioner submitted objection claiming compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- for 160 numbers of rubber trees, Rs. 20,000/- for Tube Well and bamboo fencing and Rs. 6,25,000/- as cost of the acquired land. But the competent authority did not consider the aforesaid claim of the claimant petitioner and by order dt. 04.01.12 gave compensation amounting to Rs. 1,47,000/-@Rs. 800 and Rs. 900/- for 109 and 50 numbers of rubber trees respectively and Rs. 3000/- for the tube well and Rs. 12,000/- for the bamboo fencing. The competent authority also gave Rs. 4000/- as 10% of the cost of the acquired land.

3. The claimant petitioner being dissatisfied with aforesaid compensation amount claimed Rs. 10,000/- x 160 nos of rubber trees = Rs. 16,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land.

4. On the other hand the opposite parties contested this case by filing Written Objection and they stated that the compensation for the aforesaid trees and the acquired land assessed by OP No. 4 was accepted by the claimant petitioner as adequate, reasonable and sufficient.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed in connection with this case:

1) Is the case maintainable?

2) Is the case barred by Law of Limitation?

3) Is the case bad for non joinder