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 adjudications.

JUDGMENT

1. By means of filing this Civil Revision Petition, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC, for short) being petitioner, has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil. Misc.(PMP)54 of 2014.

2. The relevant facts, necessary for disposal of this petition, are as follows:

Smt. Santibala Roy, original claimant who is the respondent herein planted 69 Rubber trees and 250 bamboo trees on a plot of land owned by her in plot Nos. 705, 893, 1032 and 1033 under Khatian No.1118 in Madhupur Mouja under Bishalgarh subdivision. For laying pipelines for transportation of natural gas to the Palatana project, the petitioner Corporation came out with a gazette notification dated 22.10.2010 under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (PMP Act, for short) to acquire the right of user in the said land. After required survey and hearing of objections, gas pipelines were laid under the said land of the claimant respondent.

3. The competent authority defined under Section 2(a) of the PMP Act, determined compensation payable to the claimant respondent in exercise of power conferred under Section 10(1) of the PMP Act for the loss sustained by the claimant respondent due to acquisition of the right of user in the said land of her and laying gas pipelines under the land. The said competent authority determined compensation at the rate of Rs.148 for each of the 67 rubber trees and Rs.30/- for each of the bamboo trees and Rs.750/- for the single Segun tree. A total amount of Rs.22,876/- was thus determined by the competent authority for payment to the land owner (the respondent herein) as compensation.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said amount of compensation determined by the competent authority, Smt. Santibala Roy being the petitioner, filed an application before the court of Learned District Judge, West Tripura Judicial District for determination of fair compensation in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the PMP Act.

5. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge by his judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed in Civil Misc.(PMP) No.54 of 2014, enhanced the amount of compensation for each of the 67 rubber trees from Rs.148 to Rs.5506. But, for the bamboo trees and the Segun tree, compensation determined by the competent authority was not changed. The learned District Judge required the petitioner Corporation to pay the said compensation to the claimant land owner (respondent herein) within a period of 60 days from the date of his judgment and to pay 6% annual interest, if the order is not complied with within 60 days.

6. The petitioner Corporation (ONGC) challenged the said judgment dated 16.02.2017 rendered by the learned District Judge by filing a Civil Revision Petition[CRP 12 of 2021] before this High Court which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 06.04.2021.

7. Since it was agitated by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the claim was time barred and the learned District Judge entertained the claim without condonation of delay, the learned Single Judge remanded the matter back to the trial court for redetermination of compensation after deciding the issue raised by the petitioner Corporation on the point of limitation. The respondent land owner on whose application the learned District Judge had passed the award was directed to submit an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT before