SUBRATA HAIT vs INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND ORS
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
RESERVED ON: 26.08.2025
DELIVERED ON:29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
SUBRATA HAIT
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:-
Mr. Debasish Kundu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Indranil Nandi, Adv.
Mr. Debaprasad Samanta, Adv.
Mr. Sayak Konar, Adv.
……For the Appellant
Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv.
Mrs. Sharmistha Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Ranit Roy, Adv.
……For the Respondent/I.O.C.L
Page 1 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ.)
1. This intra Court appeal at the instance of the respondents in WPA
13787 of 2023 is directed against the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in the
writ petition filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred
to as IOCL). The IOCL filed the writ petition challenging the reassessment of
compensation payable by them to the appellants for acquiring right of user
of the land of the appellants. The said writ petition was allowed by holding
that the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of User in
Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 1962 Act) does not confer any
power of review or re-adjudication on the competent authority as defined
under Section 2(a) of the Act. The learned Single Bench further directed that
it will be open to the appellants to approach the concerned District Judge in
terms of Section 10(2) of the said Act. Aggrieved by such decision, the
appellants, the land owners/lease holders have filed the present appeal.
2. We have elaborately heard Mr. Debasish Kundu, Learned Senior
Advocate Assisted by Mr. Indranil Nandi, Mr. Debaprasad Samanta and Mr.
Sayak Konar, learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Pratik Dhar,
Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya, Mr.
Victor Chatterjee, Mrs. Sharmistha Ghosh and Mr. Ranit Roy, learned
Advocates for the respondent/ IOCL.
3. IOCL filed the writ petition contending that Section 10(1) of the Act
provides that any person interested in the land, who has suffered any
damage, loss or injury in exercise of the power conferred on the authorities
Page 2 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
by Sections 4, 7 or Section 8 of the Act is allowed to approach for
compensation before the competent authority in the first instance and if the
amount adjudicated or awarded by the competent authority is not
acceptable to either of the parties, they can approach the concerned District
Judge in terms of Section 10(2) of the Act. IOCL argued that the competent
authority exceeded its jurisdiction in reviewing his own order instead of
relegating the appellants to the concerned District Judge by invoking
Section 10(2) of the Act therefore, the order passed by the competent
authority, impugned in the writ petition, is vitiated by lack of inherent
jurisdiction.
4. The following facts would be necessary to consider the correctness of
the impugned order.
5. The appellants had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in
WPA 19895 of 2021 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct
IOCL to forthwith pay the entire compensation in respect of the loss and
damage suffered by them during the laying of the pipeline by IOCL in terms
of the provisions of the Act. It was contended by the appellants that the
issue regarding payment of compensation in terms of the Act is pending for
consideration before the competent authority and instead of entering into
the merits of the claims and counterclaim of the respective parties the Court
may direct the competent authority to decide the prayer for payment of
compensation as contained in the letter dated February 17, 2020 in
accordance with law. Further grievance was expressed that though the
pipeline has not been laid in the entire extent of land, IOCL is not allowing
Page 3 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
the appellants to use the said land on the ground that the pipelines have
been drawn under the said property. IOCL did not oppose the prayer to the
effect that a direction may be passed upon the competent authority for
deciding the prayer for payment of compensation under the provisions of the
Act. However, they disputed the submission made by the appellant that
IOCL is not allowing them to use the property in question. Further grievance
was expressed that IOCL has erected barrier in the property causing
obstruction to the enjoyment of the property. This allegation was denied by
IOCL. The learned Writ Court was of the view that disputed factual issues
cannot be decided in a writ petition and the petitioners therein who are the
present appellants will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority in
case they feel any inconvenience in the matter of user and enjoyment of the
property in question. The Court further recorded that it is not in dispute
that a sum of Rs. 42,12,244/- has been paid by IOCL to the appellants on
account of the compensation but the grievance is with regard to
enhancement of compensation and payment of any further sum in terms of
the provisions of the Act. The Court noted that the pipelines have been laid
using a portion of the large chunk of the property and though the land
owner has a right to use and enjoy the property, he should not be permitted
to cause any damage or undertake any act or activity which is restricted
under the provisions of the Act. With this observation, this writ petition was
disposed of by order dated 23.03.2023 by directing the competent authority
to consider the prayer of the writ petitioner as contained in the letter dated
February 17, 2022 within a timeframe and dispose of the same by passing a
Page 4 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
reasoned order to be communicated to the appellant within a period of one
week from the date of passing of the said order.
6. After the disposal of the writ petition, the appellants submitted another
representation dated 11.04.2023 in continuation of the earlier
representation dated 17.02.2022 claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.
1250/- per decimal for every 110 days and accordingly, calculated the
amount at Rs. 11,00,86,362/-. The competent authority took up the matter
for hearing, noted the direction issued in WPA 19895 of 2021 dated
23.03.2023 issued notice to the parties and heard their submission. During
the hearing, submission was made on behalf of the IOCL that the competent
authority has become functus officio and does not have any authority under
the Act to grant any further compensation and the only remedy available is
to prefer an appeal before the learned District Judge if he is not satisfied
with the said compensation paid by IOCL. The claimant had placed copies of
three agreements in the writ petition and contended that the agreements
were executed by IOCL and different sets of lease holders of fisheries all
being in the same District of Purba Medinipur and in the said agreement the
payment of compensation has been arrived at after mutual discussion. It
was observed that in some cases the project work could not be completed
withing the time frame as mentioned in the agreement and the respective
lease holders demanded further compensation. The competent authority
noted that a sum of Rs. 42,12,245/- has been paid by IOCL without
executing any agreement with the appellant and, therefore, agreeing with
the appellant that to the extent that there lies no agreement with regard to
Page 5 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
the computing of compensation, and the period for which compensation will
be paid. Further, the competent authority held that in the absence of
execution of such agreement by IOCL the contention of the appellant cannot
be brushed aside. IOCL on the contrary submitted that the Acquittance Roll
with regard to the new project was prepared and crop compensation for the
period from 01.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 totally Rs. 42,12,245/- was paid
partly on 03.03.2021 and the other part on 11.05.2021. The competent
authority on the perusal fo the Acquittance Roll noted that the time period
i.e. 01.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 is not explicit in the Acquittance Roll.
Further, the competent authority noted that in almost all cases initial
agreements were executed by and between IOCL and respective lease
holders/ owners with regard to payment of compensation and the said
compensation was ultimately paid on the basis of the agreed amount. The
competent authority faulted IOCL in not having consulted the competent
authority nor held any discussion with the lease holders and when disputes
arose and IOCL could not settle the matter with the respective lease holders,
the competent authority was called upon to interfere. The competent
authority found that the case of the appellant is one such case where there
was no discussion with the competent authority during the payment of the
sum of Rs. 42,12,245/- by way of crop compensation except the cheques
were signed against the award prepared based on the Panchnama for
payment to the lease holder by way of compensation and nothing was
discussed with the competent authority prior to negotiation or settlement
with the lease holder. IOCL had contended before the competent authority
that the appellant handed over only the land within the right of used area
Page 6 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
and not the entire extent of 9360 decimals. This argument of IOCL was
rejected by the competent authority holding that in view of the fact that
Panchnama dated 22.05.2020 records that the total area of affected crop is
9360 decimals which corroborates with the affected area of 3,78,799 sq.
meters as mentioned in the Acquittance Roll. The dispute was as to whether
the land was put to use for pisciculture or not was also dealt with by the
competent authority. It was further noted by the competent authority that
the appellant by their representation dated 17.02.2022 prayed for
compensation at Rs. 1250/- per decimal for every 110 days and upon
perusal of the agreements entered into with the other lease holders it was
seen that IOCL had paid Rs. 1000/- per decimal for 110 days and in the
case of the appellant the accepted rate was Rs. 450/- per decimal which was
accepted by the appellant without objection and therefore, held that the rate
per decimal cannot be enhanced.
7. The competent authority next proceeded to consider the argument of
IOCL that he has become functus officio . It was pointed out that by email
dated 25.01.2022 the matter was referred to the competent authority by the
General Manager (Construction), IOCL, Haldia for out of Court settlement
and consequent upon receiving the said mail, proceeding was initiated
which was kept in abeyance during the pendency of the writ petition filed by
the appellant and having regard to the direction issued in the writ petition it
was held that the competent authority cannot be stated to have become
and that he cannot decide the question of payment of
functus officio
additional compensation or further compensation to the appellants.
Page 7 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
Accordingly, the competent authority held that he is empowered under the
provisions of the Act and the direction issued by this Court in the earlier
writ petition to pass the order. Accordingly, the competent authority held
that the appellants were entitled to further compensation at Rs. 450/- per
th th
decimal for 60 days for the period from 20 May, 2020 to 13 June, 2022
th
i.e. for 754 days as they could not cultivate the lease land from 14 June,
2022 till the date of handing over the possession on 23.03.2023. They are
entitled to get present crop value in terms of Rule 4(2)(e) of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 for
283 days which will be 80% of the crop value. Direction was issued for
payment of compensation within one month from the date of passing of the
order by the competent authority. The said order passed by the competent
authority was put to challenge by IOCL in WPA 13787 of 2023 which was
allowed by the impugned order. The following are the broad issues which fall
for consideration in this appeal.
(a) On and after the passing of the order in WPA 19895 of 2021 dated
23.03.2023 is IOCL entitled to object to the jurisdiction of the
competent authority to consider the claim made by the appellants vide
the letter dated 17.02.2022?
(b) It is an admitted fact that compensation has been paid to the
appellants calculated at the rate of Rs. 450/- per decimal which was
paid in two instalments and it has to be seen as to how the said
amount of Rs. 450/- was arrived at.
Page 8 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
(c) If it is an admitted position that no agreement was entered into
between the appellant and IOCL can the appellant be compelled to
accept the compensation at the rate of Rs. 450/- per decimal?
(d) Is the claim made by the appellant a claim for additional
compensation or enhanced compensation?
(e) Whether IOCL is entitled to place any arguments by referring to
Section 9 of the Act which deals with restrictions regarding the use of
land?
8. We proceed to decide the above issues in seriatum.
9. The learned Single Bench was of the view that a direction issued in the
writ petition to take a decision on the prayer made by the appellants in the
representation does not mean that such prayer had to be necessarily
allowed and as the decision would also include adjudication on the question
of authority and jurisdiction and it cannot be said that there was an
unqualified submission of IOCL to the jurisdiction of the competent
authority to re-adjudicate the compensation granted by the appellants.
Further, it was observed that the direction issued in the writ petition for
consideration also includes the option to reject, including a rejection on the
ground of jurisdiction as well. Accordingly, it was held that IOCL is entitled
to canvas the jurisdiction of the competent authority to adjudicate the claim.
10. In the preceding paragraphs, we have set out the observations made
by the learned Writ Court while disposing of WPA 19895 of 2021 by order
dated 23.03.2023. as noted by the learned Single Bench and by ourselves,
IOCL did not oppose the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner to direct the
Page 9 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
competent authority to decide the prayer for payment of compensation as
contained in the appellant’s letter dated 17.02.2022 in accordance with law.
There were other submissions made before the learned Writ Court which are
not very germane for deciding this appeal. The Court also noted that a sum
of Rs. 42,12,244/- has been paid by IOCL to the appellants and it observed
that the grievance of the appellant as made in the representation is with
regard to enhancement of compensation and payment of any further sums
in terms of the provisions of the Act. With these observations direction was
issued to consider the prayer made by the appellant in their representation
dated 17.02.2022. If according to IOCL the competent authority had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate claim that should have been their first objection to
the prayer sought for by the appellant. It is no doubt true that the settled
legal principle is that by consent or concession jurisdiction cannot be
conferred on an authority, nonetheless it was well open to IOCL to raise the
issue regarding the jurisdiction of the competent authority to decide the
representation of the appellant at the threshold when the writ petition was
heard. IOCL did not do so, rather did not oppose to the prayer sought for.
Had IOCL raised the issue regarding jurisdiction, in all probabilities the
learned Writ Court would have dealt with the same and arrived at a
decision. Thus, we would be right to come to a conclusion that such
argument though available to IOCL, was not put forth and would be
construed to have been a waiver of the contention that the competent
authority does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim made in the
representation dated 17.02.2022. It is not as if the learned Writ Court had
not examined the merits of the matter to the extent required considering the
Page 10 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
relief that was required to be granted. The parties were represented by the
respective Senior Counsels and submissions were made and some of the
submissions were also made with regard to the obstruction of the use of the
land by the appellant which was rebutted by IOCL and the Court gave
liberty to the appellants to approach the appropriate authority. Therefore, it
is not a pure and simple direction issued by the learned Writ Court by
passing an innocuous direction to consider the representation and dispose
of the same on merits. The Court also directed that the appellant shall be
entitled to use the property as specifically mentioned in the Panchnama
dated 22.05.2020 in the manner permitted under the provisions of the 1962
Act. Therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the
learned Single Bench to hold that IOCL could raise the issue regarding
jurisdiction of the competent authority when the adjudication commenced
by the said authority. This issue is accordingly decided.
11. The next issue which in our opinion, is the most vital issue in the
facts and circumstances of the case is that whether the claim made by the
appellants in the representation dated 17.02.2022 is a claim for enhanced
compensation or for compensation for the period for which no compensation
was determined and paid. In fact, on going through paragraph 8 of the order
passed in WPA 19895 of 2021 dated 23.03.2023 it is seen that the learned
Single Bench took note of this fact and recorded that the grievance of the
appellant is with regard to enhancement of compensation and payment of
any further sums in terms of the provisions of the Act. The compensation at
Page 11 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
the rate of Rs. 450/- per decimal was computed for the period of 60 days
that is from 22.05.2020 to 21.07.2020.
12. Mr. Dhar, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for IOCL placed heavy
reliance on the Acquittance Roll which is annexed in page 197 of the stay
application to state that the total compensation has been arrived at and paid
in two instalments which have been acknowledged by appellants and as
such determination of the compensation has been made in terms of Section
10(1) and the competent authority has no jurisdiction to review its decision
as no such power has been conferred on the competent authority under the
1962 Act. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Sethuraman Versus R.
1
Venkataraman and Others , Kalabharati Advertising Versus Hemant
2
Vimalnath Narichania and Others .
13. Mr. Kundu, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant
would fairly submit that there can be no quarrel or dispute about the said
legal proposition that unless the statute or rule permits, review application
is not maintainable in case of judicial or quasi-judicial orders and in the
absence of any provisions of the Act granting an express power of review, it
is manifest that review could not be made and the order in review, if passed,
is ultravires, illegal and without jurisdiction. The above legal principle
cannot be disputed as review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is
a creation of statute.
1
(2007) 6 SCC 382
2
(2010) 9 SCC 437
Page 12 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
14. The competent authority rightly noted that in Acquittance Roll which
notes the payment made to the appellant in two instalments of Rs.
21,06,122/- each, there is no mention of the period for which the
compensation amount was computed, determined and paid. As could be
seen from the representation given by the appellant dated 17.02.2022, the
appellant had admitted having received a sum of Rs. 42,12,245/- which was
paid in two instalments which was for a period of 60 days as the appellant
were informed that within the period of two months, the work will be
completed. The claim made is for the period post the 60 days for which the
compensation has already been paid for the said period. The appellant
wanted compensation to be computed at the rate of Rs. 1250/- per decimal
for every 110 days. This was based on the compensation which was
disbursed by IOCL to the other lease holders in the district of Purba
Medinipur. Therefore, the factual position is evidently clear that the claim
made by the appellant was for the period beyond the first 60 days for which
compensation was computed determined and paid. Therefore, we have no
hesitation to hold that the claim made by the appellant in their
representation dated 17.02.2022 is not for enhanced compensation of the
original compensation paid at the rate of Rs. 450/- per decimal but it was
for a period beyond period of 60 days for which no compensation was
determined, awarded and paid. No doubt it is true for the said period, the
appellant claims compensation at the rate of Rs. 1250/- per decimal. The
question is whether they could do so has to be considered.
Page 13 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
15. Thus, having steered clear of the factual position that the claim made
by the appellant is a fresh claim, it would be misnomer to state that the
claim is for enhanced compensation rather the correct terminology would be
additional compensation for the period for which no compensation was
determined awarded or paid. Therefore, if the factual position is so, the
competent authority had jurisdiction to decide the claim since the 1962 Act
confers power on the competent authority under Section 10(1) of the Act to
determine the compensation in the first instance. To explain the meaning of
the words “for the first instance”, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the IOCL relied upon the decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited Versus Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and Others with Union of
3
India Versus Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and Others . In paragraph 13 of
the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted Section 10 of the
Act and pointed out that the legislature has used the words “the amount of
which shall be determined by the competent authority the first instance”. In
Sub Section 1 of Section 10 clearly shows that in the first instance, it has to
be decided by the competent authority and such determination shall not
attain any finality.
16. The factual matrix in the said decision is entirely different and not
applicable to the case on hand. However, in paragraph 13, the words used
in Section 10(1) of the Act has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. As we have held that in respect of the claim made by the appellant in
their representation dated 17.02.2022 was never decided by the competent
authority at any point of time as the period for which the compensation is
3
1991 Supp (2) SCC 592
Page 14 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
claimed was well beyond the period of 60 days for which compensation has
been computed and paid. Therefore, the determination done by the
competent authority by order impugned in the writ petition is the
determination in the “first instance” in terms of the power conferred on the
competent authority under Section 10(1) of the Act. Therefore, the order
passed by the competent authority is not an order passed reviewing its
earlier decision but it is a fresh decision taken for the first time in respect of
the claim made by the appellant in the representation dated 17.02.2022.
Therefore, we are of the firm view that the order passed by the competent
authority is not an order in review but an order passed at the “first instance”
and therefore the competent authority cannot be stated to have acted
beyond the jurisdiction nor can be stated to have become functus officio .
17. The next issue to be considered is as to how the amount of Rs. 450
per decimal was arrived at while awarding the compensation. The other
issue is also connected with this issue namely whether the appellants can
be compelled to accept a sum of Rs. 450 in the absence of any agreement.
Sample copies of the agreement have been placed before this court which
was entered into between the IOCL and other lease holders wherein IOCL in
no uncertain terms had agreed to pay additional compensation if the work is
not completed within the stipulated period and in the said case, the period
stipulated was 45 days. Another agreement with other lease holders which
also shows that not only once but twice additional compensation had been
paid to the lease holders/owners or on account of delay in completion of the
project. The rights which accrued in favour of those lease holders and
Page 15 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
owners pursuant to such agreement cannot be denied by IOCL as IOCL have
accepted the terms and conditions in the agreement and also the effected
payment of the additional compensation to those lease holders/owners. If
that be the case, it is rather surprising for a public sector undertaking to not
enter into an agreement with the lease holders/owners/appellant before
commencing the project. Curiously enough the entire project was
implemented by entering into the Panchanama dated 22.05.2020. In the
Panchnama there is a tabulated statement which gives names of the crop,
Dag number in which crop exists, area of effected crop and
standing/presumptive crop. It has been recorded under the column “name
of crop” as “fisheries”. The Dag numbers have been given, the area of
affected is mentioned as 9360 decimal 3,78,799 square metres and in the
column standing/presumptive crop it is mentioned as “standing”. Thus, if it
has been recorded in the panchnama as “fisheries”, it will be too late in the
day for IOCL to raise the objection by referring to Section 9 of the Act, 1962
which deals with restrictions regarding the use of land. In other words IOCL
are estopped from doing so. The entire project proceed based on the
panchnama, as mentioned, it is rather surprising that the IOCL had done
so.
18. That apart, there is nothing to show that the appellants had
unequivocally and consciously agreed to the sum of Rs. 450 per decimal
which was paid to them for the period of 60 days compuited at Rs. 42,12,
245/-. In the absence of any admission on the part of the appellant, IOCL
are not entitled to contend that appellant had accepted the said amount
Page 16 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
without raising any objection, if there was an agreement and in the
agreement there were covenants and conditions, the appellant have
consciously signed the agreement, it would have been a different matter.
Thus, in the absence of any such agreement the compensation which was
determined at the rate Rs. 450/- per decimal can be construed only a
determination at the first instance under Section 10(1) of the Act and if the
appellants are aggrieved they are entitled to approach the concerned District
Court for enhanced compensation over and above of Rs. 450/- per decimal
for the period of 60 days in terms of the sub section 2 of Section 10. This
right being statutory right cannot be objected by IOCL, more particularly,
when there is nothing on record, to show that the appellants had
unequivocally accepted the said amount.
19. Mr. Kundu, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant is
right in drawing an analogy by referring to Section 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 which provides for land loosers to claim enhanced
compensation, in the event the adjoining land owners whose lands were also
acquired were paid enhanced compensation pursuant to an order of
reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and seek for re-determination.
20. The concept of compensation for land loosers either by way of
compulsory acquisition or by way of acquisition and in terms of the 1962
Act which undoubtedly puts certain restrictions on the land owners with
regard to the use of land, the concept has had a sea change after the
enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitaiton and Resettlement Act, 2013. The title of the Act
Page 17 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
itself prioritises the rights of the land owners in contradistinction with the
title of the 1894 Act or for that matter the 1962 Act. The 2013 Act also
provides for rehabilitation and resettlement in case of compulsory
acquisition of land. Therefore, the claim for compensation when is being
decided after enactment of the 2013 Act has to be viewed with a different
prism bearing in mind the loss the land owners/lease holders had suffered
and the difficulty he would put to on account of the restrictions as contained
in Section 9 of the 1962 Act. Therefore, there is paradigm shift in the
appraoch to such matters which must weigh in the mind of IOCL. Therefore,
we hold that the appellants are entitled to approach the concerned District
Court in Sub Section (2) of Section 10 of the 1962 Act claiming enhanced
compensation over and above the compensation of Rs. 450 per decimal
calculated for a period of 60 days by filing appropriate application before the
concerned District Court. We reiterate that the claim made in the
representation dated 17.02.2022 is not a claim for enhanced compensation
but it is fresh claim for a period for which no compensation was determined
or paid as it is the period beyond the initial period of 60 days.
21. We further reiterate that in the absence of any indication in
Acquittance Roll, which was heavily relied upon by IOCL, it has to be held
that the determination done and the compensation paid as noted in the
Acquittance Roll for the initial period of 60 days and not thereafter. As
already pointed out the panchanama clearly records the land was put to use
for “fisheries” and the type of crop is mentioned as “standing”. Therefore,
IOCL are estopped from now contending that the appellants had violated the
Page 18 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
condition stipulated in clause (ii) of proviso under Section 9(1) of the 1962
Act. This is more so, because the recording in the panchnama was never
disputed by IOCL.
22. That apart, the Panchnama is a document recognised under the
statute. If we look into Rule 4A of the 1963 Rules under Sub Rule 2 of Rule
4A it states that while conducting enquiry while granting the compensation
under sub Rule 3 of Rule 4, the competent authority shall follow procedure
as stipulated in sub rule 1 and in sub rule 2. In Sub Rule 2, it is stated for
compensation for the other damages or loss while exercising the power
conferred under the Act or rules made thereunder, the competent authority
shall obtained the panchnama prepared by the team appointed by him duly
signed preferably by the person interested in the land or by two independent
and respectable inhabitants of the locality and the representative of the
work execution agency. The said panchanama shall contain the details of
damages or losses caused while exercising power conferred by Section 4,7 or
8 of the 1962 Act. Therefore, panchanama is a vital document to be taken
note of while conducting an enquiry for grant of compensation under sub
rule 3 of rule 4 of the 1963 rules. Therefore, whatever has been recorded in
the panchnama cannot be disputed by IOCL at this stage or at any anterior
point of time.
23. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that the competent
authority had not reassessed compensation payable by IOCL to the
appellant as it is compensation which has to be determined at the first
instance in terms of the Section 10(1) of the Act. The compensation which
Page 19 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
was claimed by the appellant in their representaiton dated 17.02.2022 is for
additional compensation and not enhanced compensation.
24. For all the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by
the Learned Single Bench is set aside with the following directions:-
(i) The compensation which was determined by the competent
authority in the order dated 22.05.2023 which was impugned in
the writ petition is held to be a determination of the compensation
by the competent authority in the first instance in terms of Section
10(1) of the 1962 Act.
(ii) In the absence of an agreement between IOCL and the appellant
with regard to the rate of compensation, and in the absence of any
record to show that the appellants had unequivocally accepted the
sum of Rs. 450/- it has to be held that the amount of Rs. 450/-
which was computed determined and paid to the appellant being a
total sum of Rs. 42,12, 245/- is a compensation determined at the
“first instance” and the appellant is entitled to file an application
before the concern District Judge for enhancement.
(iii) Having held that the compensation which was determined and
computed by the competent authority in the order impugned in the
writ petition is the compensation determined at the “first instance”,
the appellant are entitled to file an application before the
concerned District Judge under Section 10(2) for enhancement of
the said compensation.
Page 20 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
(iv) IOCL is directed to pay the compensation as computed by
competent authority in the order dated 22.05.2023, impugned in
writ petition, within the period of 30 days from the date of the
receipt of the server copy of this order and the appellant is at
liberty to file an application before the concerned District Judge for
enhancement within the period of three months from the date on
which the amount as ordered by competent authority is paid in full
to the appellant. The concerned District Judge shall extertain the
application and decide the same on merits and in accordance with
law.
(v) In the light of the facts recorded in the panchnama dated
22.05.2023, the respondent IOCL are estopped from raising any
argument alleging that the appellant had violated the restrictions
contained under Section 9 of the 1962 Act as it was well within the
knowledge of the IOCL that the land was put to use for fishery
purpose.
25. In the operative portion of the judgment and order, we have held that
the IOCL were not entitled to objecd to the jurisdiction of the competent
authority in the light of the order passed in the earlier writ petition in WPA
19895 of 2021 and it would tantamount to waiver, however in the light of
the conclusions arrived at by us holding that the determination of the
compensation by the competent authority in the order impugned in the writ
petition is a compensation determined in terms of Section 10(1), the said
Page 21 of 22
MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
REPORTABLE
finding has become academic. The appeal is allowed with the above
directions. No costs.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
I Agree.
[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]
(P.A.- PRAMITA/SACHIN)
Page 22 of 22