IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1883 of 2021 ======================================

NIMISHBHAI BHARATBHAI PANCHAL Versus GENERAL MANAGER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

======================================

Appearance:

MR DHAIRYA J. PATEL, ADVOCATE for MS.SHIVANI V TRIVEDI(7225) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KUNAN B NAIK(3210) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5 ======================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 02/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. The present petition has been presented in the month of January, 2021 with a specific contention that the respondent – ONGC has acquired the land in question temporarily for a period of two years in the year 1999 by application of Section 35(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 1894’). However, till date, the land in question has not been released nor any permanent acquisition has been made. The respondent – ONGC is utilising the land in question on a meager amount towards annual rent unilaterally determined by it.

2. It is contended in the writ petition that the initial annual rent was determined on the basis of price of the land and other circumstances obtaining at the relevant point of time. However, the price of land in and around the vicinity have multiplied during the past so many years after the land in question was temporarily acquired.

3. The prayer made in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the respondent – ONGC either to release the land in question unauthorisedly retained by them beyond the scope of Section 35(1) of the Act’ 1894 or to pay the annual rental compensation as per the prevailing market price with interest to the petitioner. Alternative prayer has been made to issue direction to the respondent – ONGC to acquire the land in question, if it is needed by them permanently by undertaking proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’

2013’) and to pay compensation to the petitioner.

4. After a period of three years, from the date of presentation of the writ petition, an affidavit dated 15.04.2024 has been filed by the respondent – ONGC by the Deputy General Manager (Production) In-charge Land Acquisition Officer wherein in a vague averment in paragraph ‘5’ of the affidavit, it is stated that the competent authority has decided to acquire the subject land permanently under the provisions of the Act’ 2013 and the Corporation shall submit its proposal for permanent acquisition of the subject land to the State Government in accordance with the applicable provisions of law.

5. By means of another affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent – ONGC dated 23.09.2025, a para-wise reply to the averments made in the writ petition has been given, wherein it is stated that in furtherance of the temporary acquisition of the land in question under Section 35(2) of the Act’ 1894, an award under the said provision determining the amount of rent payable to the petitioner as compensation for temporary acquisition of the land was declared on 16.05.2000 and the same was to be executed under certain conditions enumerated in the award.

6. The petitioner herein filed an LAQ Case No.59 of 2001 for enhancement of rental compensation, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on 06.04.2015. The statement in the writ petition that the LAQ Case No.59 of 2001 was withdrawn on account of mutual understanding arrived between the acquiring body and the claimant in the matter of increase of rate of rent is denied and it was contended that the statement in the writ petition that the rent amount has not been reviewed is incorrect.

7. The contention is that the