The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to the

name of Government of India being entered in the

property records in respect of his lands and also the

alleged frugality of the compensation paid for using the

subsoil for laying a pipeline.

2.

After service of notice, the 1^st Respondent is

represented by the Panel Counsel; 2^nd Respondent Special

Deputy Commissioner, Competent Authority is represented

by the Senior Panel Counsel. Both they oppose the Writ

Petition contending that land of the Petitioner is not taken

out at all; subsoil has been used for laying the pipeline

under the provisions of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. The 1^st

Respondent

has

filed

the

Statement

of

Objections

- 3 -

contending that 10% of guideline value of the subject

property has been paid to the Petitioner by way of

compensation for using the subsoil of his land u/s 10(4) of

this Act. If Petitioner has grievance as to the inadequacy of

the compensation, it is open to him to approach the

District Judge under Rule 10(5) of Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules,

1963. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ

Petition.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is

inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the

ownership of the subject land would still continue with the

Petitioner himself as has been submitted by the learned

Advocates appearing for the Respondents rightly. If that

be so, the 2^nd Respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner

ought to have ensured that name of Central Government

does not figure in the property records in respect of the

subject land.

- 4 -

4.

The second grievance, i.e., inadequacy of

compensation, Petitioner has got an alternate & efficacious

remedy as provided under Rule 10(5) of the 1963 Rules

and in this connection, he can make a petition to the

jurisdictional District Judge within a period prescribed by

law. Learned counsel for the 2^nd Respondent points out

that the period prescribed for filing petition is 90 days

from the date the compensation has been paid to him and

years having now rolled, nothing can be made out. This

court shares the same view. It is stated by the sages of

law that law and this court does not come to the aid of

sleepy & tardy since delay defeats equity.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is

partly allowed; 2^nd Respondent is directed to ensure that

name of the Petitioner alone would continue in the

property records after deleting that of the Central

Government. This has to be accomplished immediately and

compliance report should be filed to the Registrar General

of this Court within an outer limit of 60 days failing which

- 5 -

the incumbent of office of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner

shall be personally liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per day to the

Petitioner for the first 30 days and Rs.3,000/- thereafter.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CBC