Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Santibala Roy

Heard Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents.

This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. Civil Misc. (PMP) 54 of 2014 wherein the learned trial court has awarded compensation for laying Gas Pipelines damaging the trees thereof.

The facts in brief, are that, the respondents no. 1,2 and 3, here-in- after referred to as ONGC Ltd. by gazette notification dated 22.10.2010 used the land-in-question for the purpose of laying down Gas Pipelines for supply of gas to the Palatana Project, Udaipur, South Tripura, now Gomati District. The matter was referred to the competent authority. The competent authority made an award vide order dated 20.02.2012. Being dissatisfied with the award by the competent authority, the land owners, i.e. the respondents herein, filed an application under Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962, here-in-after, the Act, and prayed for re-determination of the compensation. The matter was referred to the court of learned District Judge. The proceeding started with filing of plaint. Written objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner-ONGC. Thereafter, issses were framed based on the pleadings of the parties. Evidences were recorded. Having heard the learned counsel and on consideration of the evidences and materials on record, the learned District Judge assessed the valuation of the damaged trees to the tune of Rs. 22,876/- vide judgment dated 20.02.2012, which is under challenge before this court.

Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- ONGC, has raised the point of limitation and submitted that the learned District Judge ought to have rejected the application of the respondent- land owners for the reason that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. Mr. Saha, has further contended that when a specific ground has been taken in the written objection saying that the suit is barred by law of limitation and, as specific issue has been framed in this regard, duty casts upon the court to decide this issue. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has strongly placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Babu and others vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma and others [Civil Appeal no. 2815 of 2008, decided on 16th April, 2008]. Mr. Saha, has further relied upon a decision of this court rendered in Sri Tarani Debbarma and another vs. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and others [ CRP no. 17 of 2016 and other related cases, decided on 30.05.2017].

I have considered the submission of Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the judgments, learned counsel has referred to here-in-above.

The main crux of these judgments is that if an application under Section 10(2) of the PMP Act is filed after expiry of 90 days, the prescribed period of limitation under the PMP Rules, then, there must be a formal application to be filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating the ground for delay. It is also the duty of the petitioner to make statement in his petition as to when he was intimated with the order of the competent authority or when he received the knowledge of passing the order by the competent authority. It is also clarified in the judgment of Tarani Debbarma (supra) that mere signing on the receipt register or any other document or indemnity bond not relating to the substantive content of the award cannot form 'intimation'. Intimation must be substantive and as a safer course, it must carry a copy of the order of award. No other document shall be considered, as intimation. It is also held in Tarani Debbarma (supra), that mere intimation of mere knowledge would not suffice, it shall be substantive, meaning that the intimation shall carry un-substantive knowledge or the relevant part thereof. Its communicating thereafter shall be established.

In the instant case, a specific statement has been made by the petitioner-ONGC that the respondents i.e. the land owners filed the application under Section 10(2) of the PMP Act, on 28.05.2013, whereas, the competent authority determined the compensation vide award dated 20.02.2012. As such, the delay is apparent on the face of the record.

In my opinion, in that case, it is the duty of the petitioner to submit a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

From the order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, it reveals that while deciding the case, the learned District Judge has observed that the petitioner-ONGC did not raise any question regarding maintainability of the application or other technicalities by recording defects in the application which include the issue of limitation also, which was specifically framed by the learned District Judge.

In view of the fact that no formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the respondent-land owners while filing the application under Section 10(2) of the PMP Act, before the learned District Judge, in my opinion, the matter should be remitted to the court of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala giving an opportunity to the respondent-land owners to file a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 10 of the PMP Act for re-determination of the compensation. Having received the application for condonation of delay, the learned district Judge shall decide the merits of the application in accordance with law and, thereafter, shall hear the argument of both the parties on merits of the suit.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition is allowed, in the above terms and thus, disposed off.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.