High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 2234/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI
Legal Reasoning
unting to a sum of Rs. 25,48,250/-. It is submitted by him that Land Chart had to be prepared on 3 (three) occasions as there were lot of discrepancies in the names of pattadars against Dag Nos. a nd Patta Nos. of the respective areas shown. Referring to paragraph 8 of the aff idavit, learned Senior counsel submits that in the last Land Chart prepared on 2 0.12.2000, names of the petitioners as indicated therein did not figure. Oil Ind ia Limited had carried out survey and measurement of individual plots of land in volved in laying down of the pipe-tracks and a Map No. 8834 was prepared, which was also forwarded to the Circle Officer, Tinsukia to help him prepare a fresh L and Chart, he submits. He has also submitted that Oil India Limited is willing to pay the land value fo und due to the rightful claimants. With regard to the order dated 24.06.2005, th e learned Senior counsel submits that there is no dispute that land value has in creased appreciably over a period spanning over 20 years. It is also submitted by him that Oil India Limited may also furnish the list of beneficiaries who were provided with surface compensation to the Deputy Commissi oner, Tinsukia to facilitate finalisation of the process of payment of compensat ion to the rightful claimants. He further submits that a representative of Oil I ndia Limited may also visit the office of the respondent No. 2 with the document s in their possession pertaining to the process. Mr. Ahmed finally submits that this Court should also ensure that at the time of receiving compensation, pattadars execute respective sale deed(s) so that the i ssue can be settled finally. Though no reply-affidavit has been filed by Mr. Bhowmik, he submits that it is n ot correct that petitioner No. 1 had received compensation as stated in the affi davit in respect of the land involved in the present case and asserts that he ha d received compensation for other land acquired as is clearly demonstrated by An nexures-4 and 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Oil India Limited. He has further submitted that over a period of time, many pattadars have died an d therefore, it will not be unusual to now have pattadars who may not have figur ed in the list by which surface compensation was paid. Mr. Upadhyay, learned State counsel, in absence of an affidavit and instructions , is unable to contribute much to the proceeding. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of use of Oil India Limited in laying down pipe lines for Hapjan OCS to Nagajan OCS, land had been taken over through private negotiation at the intervention of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. Th ere also does not appear to be any dispute that land value had been fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia and apparently in the year 1990, some rate with r egard to land value was fixed. This value, according to Mr. Bhowmik, was Rs. 60, 000/-. The affidavit of Oil India Limited also makes a mention of payment of Rs. 60,000/- per bigha during the relevant period. The pattadars have been deprived of the use of the land for all these years from 1990. There is no denying the fact that value of land has increased appreciably , which fact is also not disputed by Mr. Ahmed. The petitioners have also been c ontinuing to pay land revenue as the arrangement of taking over land contemplate s transfer of land to Oil India Limited by the pattadars on payment of compensat ion. There is also no provision for payment of interest under the arrangement. I n such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the land hold ers whose land was taken over for the pipe-track project is entitled a sum of Rs . 1,00,000/- per bigha as fixed by the order dated 24.06.2005 and Clauses 2, 3 a nd 4 thereof cannot be said to have any justification. The order has not taken i nto consideration realities of the situation. Why the order was given retrospect ive effect from 01.01.2002 is also not intelligible. When no interest is payable for land taken over and payment is also not made for more than 2 decades, it wi ll be unconscionable to pin the pattadars down by the rate prevalent in 1990. Ac cordingly, Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the order dated 24.06.2005 are set aside being arbitrary and unreasonable. Dispute relating to identity of the pattadars may not detain this Court in view of the order that is proposed to be passed. As a rule of prudence, writ Court, normally, ought not to enter into domain of disputed question of facts. Therefor e, this Court will be loathe to adjudicate on the entitlement of the petitioners to claim compensation. But at the same time, undisputed position that emerges w ithout any unambiguity is that no land value has been paid to the pattadars till date.
Arguments
Heard Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, thirty two (32) in number. Also heard Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned Senior counsel appearing for respond ent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. N Upadhyay, learned State counsel appearing for resp ondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioners, by filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitutio n of India, challenges the condition Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the order dated 24.06.20 05 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia (Annexure-6) and also pra ys for a direction to pay land value @ of Rs. 1 lakh per bigha by completing the process for land acquired for the purpose of laying pipe-track from Hapjan OCS to Nagajan OCS (Oil Connecting Station). An application being Misc. Case No. 917/2010 was filed by the petitioners prayin g for alternative reliefs in the form of direction to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to vacate the land in possession of the petitioners and to restore khas possess ion to them and also to pay compensation on the basis of annual agricultural inc ome on the land from the date of taking over possession of the land by the respo ndents till restoration of the same to the petitioners. The relevant extract of the order dated 24.06.2005 reads as follows: (cid:28)ORDER In view of order No. DRA.1/89/180 dt. 30/3/05 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh and in order to keep uniformity, the rate per bigha of rural land wit hin Tinsukia district acquired by the Oil India Limited for purpose related to o il exploration is fixed @ Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only per bigha. This rate shall be uniform through the Tinsukia district in respect of land in rural area as may be acquired by the Oil India Limited, Duliajan for exploration purpo ses. This new rate shall be effective in respect of following circumstances: 1. ue of this order. 2. The new rate will also have retrospective effect from 1st January, 2002 in respect of all unsettled pending cases where land value has not yet been paid The new rate comes into force with immediate effect from the date of iss by OIL, Duliajan. Pre-1990 unsettled pending cases if any will be covered by the 1990 rate 3. s only as per office order No. DRA.1/89/190 dt. 20/06/1992. 4. tes only upto 31st December, 2001. This valuation/rate will be exclusive of the surface compensation which must be paid separately. Post -1990 unsettled pending cases if any will be covered by the 1990 ra District Controller & Deputy Commissioner, T Sd/-S.Lohiya insukia. Dated Tinsukia, the 24th June’05. (cid:29) Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that periodic patta land of the petitioners was taken over by Oil India Limited way back in 19 90-91 and although surface compensation was paid, till now, for no fault of thei rs, compensation on account of land value has not been paid to them as a result of which the petitioners have suffered grave prejudice. He submits that Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the order dated 24.06.2005, arbitrarily limits the rate of Rs. 1,0 0,000/- to be operative from 01.01.2002 and not to any pending cases prior to th e said date. He submits that when the land value has not been paid in respect of unsettled claims, for long more than 20 years, condition Nos. 3 and 4 directing that 1990 rates will be operative for pre-1990 and post-1990 cases is arbitrary and discriminatory and cannot be sustained. It is further submitted by him that there is no rational basis also for granting retrospective effect w.e.f 01.01.2 002. It is also stated by him that the land was not acquired in the strict sense of the term as is understood under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1954 but land was taken over by Oil India Limited through private negotiation be tween Oil India Limited and owners of land through a process of facilitation mad e by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia in national interest for the purpose of l aying down pipe lines. In the aforesaid premises, learned counsel submits that payment at 1990 rates as contemplated by the order dated 24.06.2005 at this distance of time, betrays no n-application of mind and as such, in the interest of justice, direction should be issued for payment @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per bigha, instead of Rs. 60,000/- which was the prevailing rate in 1990. It is also submitted by him that certain issues have been raised by Oil India Limited with regard to identification of land inv olved. He submits that appropriate directions may be issued to the Deputy Commis sioner, Tinsukia to prepare a list of persons entitled to receive compensation a longwith their proportionate share of land at the earliest so that the long pend ing claims of the petitioners can be redressed. Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned Senior counsel for Oil India Limited, with reference to th e affidavit filed, submits that a total area of land measuring around 55Bs , 1K and 1L including forest land was taken over by Oil India Limited, Dulia jan after holding private negotiation for the purpose of laying pipe-line for cr ude oil/gas transportation from Hapjan OCS to Nagajan OCS in the year 1990-91 on payment of surface compensation to all the affected occupiers/pattadars amo
Decision
In view of the above, it is directed that it will be the responsibility of the D eputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to see to it that the process culminating in identi fication of the pattadars entitled to receive compensation alongwith quantum of compensation to be received by them with detailed reference to area of land shal l be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided that he may request Oil Ind ia Limited to depute a representative to meet him alongwith copies of documents in possession of Oil India Limited so as to enable him to complete the aforesaid exercise. Once the process is complete, he will direct Oil India Limited to dep osit the amount quantified to his office for disbursement. The amount shall be d eposited within 3 (three) months from such direction of the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, shall ensure execution of sale deeds in favo ur of Oil India Limited at the time of payment of compensation. Writ petition stands disposed of.