High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3181/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Oil I ndia Limited (OIL) is represented by Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, the learned Senior Counsel. Ms. K. Devi, the learned Government Advocate appears for the respondents 1, 2 & 3. Since common issues are raised in the 3 cases and similar arguments are adva nced, the following order will cover all the cases. In pursuant to the application made by the Oil India Limited, Duliajan, 2. the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia through his order dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure-A) granted permission to the OIL authorities to enter upon and carry out surface o peration on the petitioners’ lands. The damage caused on the affected lands were to be assessed and the affected land owners were to be compensated. The Right o f Entry initially granted on 10.5.2006 was extended for further 180 days w.e.f. 2.4.2007, through the order dated 9.4.2007 (Annexure-B). 3. But after Right of Entry was sanctioned to OIL, belligerent protest and agitation was launched by the local people and accordingly position had to be r e-assessed and a decision was taken in a joint meeting held on 25.9.2007 by the District Authorities and the representation of the Oil to divert the alignment o f the pipeline through another area. Consequently the land of the petitioners we re not utilized for laying of the pipeline and the process initiated through the order dated 10.5.2006 stood abandoned. 4. The aggrieved land owners from the Hatigarh, Lesenka and Jagyakhoya and other villages of Doomdooma circle in Tinsukia district then gave representation on 12.12.2007 to the Tinsukia Deputy Commissioner for granting compensation for the damage suffered by them. In their representation, the petitioners stated th at taking advantage of the Collector’s order dated 10.5.2006, some unscrupulous elements have cut down their betal nut and bamboo trees and damaged fencings and animals have damaged the crops on the petitioners’ land. On this basis, they pr ayed for payment of compensation for the alleged loss suffered by the landowners . 5. However in the counter affidavit filed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia on 19.12.2006, it is averred that there was no acquisition of the pet itioners’ lands and only limited Right of Entry permission was granted to OIL by the Collector. But due to obstruction and threat by the local people who were c laiming exorbitant and unrealistic compensation, it was decided to divert the pi peline track through T.E. lands. The claim for compensation was repudiated by co ntending that no damage was caused by the OIL authorities and cultivation contin ued as usual and therefore there can be no direction for compensation. 6. Representing the Oil India Limited, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. M.Z. Ahmed projects that Right of Entry enables survey of the targeted land and no in jury or damage is caused through such Right of Entry. He submits that the planne d alignment of the pipeline track had to be diverted because of obstruction and threat and accordingly it is argued that the petitioners are disentitled to any damage. The Senior Counsel points out that local revenue officials were given li fe threats to coerce them to prepare inflated compensation claim for the land ow ners of the Doomdooma circle. To illustrate the issue Mr. Ahmed submits that for similar land of 55 persons in Tinsukia, mere Rs.28,10,749/- was assessed but gl aringly for the Doomdooma circle, inflated compensation of Rs.4.88 crores (appro ximately) was assessed without justification. Because of such inflated and unrea l estimate, the concerned revenue staff were placed under suspension on 4.9.2007 . 7. Under Rule 190 of Chapter-VIII of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the holder of a Mining Lease can be permitted by the Deputy Commissioner to enter and carry out survey operation of land. But without express sanction, t he lessee is not entitled cut down timber trees and such permission enables the lessee to clear only brushwood or undergrowth to enforce the Right of Entry and survey. 8. In the present case, the OIL authorities requested for Right of Entry in order to survey whether the pipeline track can be laid across the petitioners’ land. But due to threat and obstruction and exorbitant demands made by the affec ted land owners, the alignment of the pipeline track had to be diverted after re -assessment of the ground realities in the joint meeting on 25.9.2007. Consequen tly the petitioners’ lands were neither used nor was acquired for the purpose fo r which the Right of Entry permission was granted on 10.5.2006 by the Deputy Com missioner, Tinsukia. Although the petitioners claim that they deserved to be compensated for 9. the damage caused by the Oil authorities, what is glaring is that in their repre sentation of 12.12.2007, the petitioners have not made any direct allegation aga inst the OIL officials. What is represented is that some unscrupulous persons by taking advantage of the Collector’s permission granted on 10.5.2006 have cut aw ay their bamboo and betal nut trees. In fact crop damage by the elephants, buffa los are alleged by the petitioners in their written representation given to the Deputy Commissioner on 12.12.2007. 10. Having noted that the petitioners’ land were never acquired and also con sidering that the pipeline had to be diverted because of the protest and threat where the land owners may have joined I feel that damage can’t be claimed from t he respondents particularly when, the petitioners have not made any specific com plaint against the OIL authorities or the district administration. 11. However Mr. P.C. Dey, the learned Counsel submits that because of the Ri ght of Entry granted to OIL, the land owners couldn’t cultivate their lands and accordingly they should be compensated on this count. But in the context of this claim, it must also be noted that in the Deputy Commissioner’s affidavit, it is clearly averred that the petitioners cultivated their lands as usual and there is no rebuttal to this averments by the petitioners. Therefore since only survey permission was granted to the OIL authorities, this prayer of the petitioners c an’t be considered without any evidence to show that the land owners were preven ted from carrying out their normal cultivation activities. Moreover, compensatio n can’t be considered without cogent material and a Writ Court is not the most s uitable forum to decide such claim. 12. In view of above, I see no merit in these cases and the same are accordi ngly dismissed without any order on cost. But this dismissal order will not prec lude the petitioners to initiate civil action if so advised, for any perceived d amage suffered by them. It is ordered accordingly.