DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER OIL NATURAL GAS CORPORATION vs VITHHALBHAI UMEDDAS THROUGH POA RAMANBHAI KANTILAL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
Reserved On : 24/04/2026
Pronounced On : 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1139 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1140 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1141 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1142 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1144 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1145 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1147 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER OIL NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
Versus
VITHHALBHAI UMEDDAS THROUGH POA RAMANBHAI KANTILAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PINANK RAIYANI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker appearing for the
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
ONGC since did not agree to dispose of the captioned First
Appeals in view of circular No.PRC/Lok
Adalat/102013/1793/GH issued by the State of Gujarat dated
25.10.2016 and insisted for the reasoned order, with the
consent of learned advocates for the respective parties,
present First Appeals are taken up for final disposal today.
2. In a temporary acquisition, the learned Reference Court
at Kalol in group of LAR Nos.260 of 2012 to 264 of 2012
(Original LAR Nos.607/2000 to 611/2000) keeping the lead
matter being LAR No.260 of 2012, passed the judgment and
award dated 30.6.2019 and ordered to pay compensation of
Rs.18.15 per sq mtr per annum to the claimants from the date
of taking possession for the period of three years as an
additional compensation over and above the compensation
already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
3. The ONGC valued the appeals for jurisdiction and Court
fee purpose as per following break up.
First Appeal Nos.1139 to 1142 of 2020 (Village: Dingucha)
FA
Nos.
LAR
Nos.
Measurem
Award
by SLAO
Award
by Ref.
Addl.
Commpe
Addl.
Commpe
ent of
acquired
land (in sq
(in Rs./
sq mtr)
Court
(in Rs./
sq mtr)
nsation
nsation
(1 yr)
(Rs.18.15
(3 yr)
mtr)
x area sq
mtr)
1139/
261/12 1380
18.15/-
25,047/- 75,141/-
(Addl.
Compen
20
1.65/-
1140/
260/12 1080 19,602/- 58,806/-
sation)
20
1141/ 263/12 5510 1,00,006. 3,00,019.
Page 2 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
20 5/- 5/-
1142/
262/12 2125 38,568.7
1,15,706.
20
5/-
25/-
First Appeal Nos.1144, 1145 & 1147 of 2020 (Village: Saij)
FA
Nos.
LAR
Nos.
Measurem
Award
by SLAO
Award
by Ref.
Addl.
Commpe
Addl.
Commpe
ent of
acquired
land (in sq
(in Rs./
sq mtr)
Court
(in Rs./
sq mtr)
nsation
nsation
(1 yr)
(Rs.18.15
(3 yr)
mtr)
x area sq
mtr)
1144/
292/12 846
12.70/-
10,744.2/
32,232.6/
(Addl.
Compen
20
-
-
1145/
0.80/-
295/12 8856 1,12,471.
3,37,413.
sation)
20
2/-
6/-
1147/
293/12 3542 44,983.4/
1,34,950.
20
-
2/-
4. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the appeals are
valued less than Rs.5 lakh for both the purposes i.e. for
jurisdiction and for Court fee.
5. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
First Appeal Nos.1139/2020 to 1142/2020
5.1 The lands of the claimants situated at village Dingucha,
Tal: Kalol, Dist: Gandhinagar came to be temporarily acquired
by the appellant – ONGC for the purpose of drilling PLAG.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated
Page 3 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
23.7.1997 awarded Rs.1.65/- per sq mtr as rental
compensation for the temporarily acquired lands. The
claimants preferred reference under section 18 of the Act
before the learned Reference Court, who by impugned
common judgment and award, partly allowed the reference of
the original claimants and granted additional amount of
compensation of Rs. 18.15/- per sq.mtr per annum from the
date of taking possession for the period of three years over
and above the rental compensation awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant is also directed to pay
interest on additional rental compensation at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of possession till realization. Feeling
aggrieved by the award, the appellant ONGC has preferred
the present appeals.
First Appeal Nos.1144/2020, 1145/2020 & 1147/2020
5.2 The lands of the claimants situated at village Saij, Tal:
Kalol, Dist: Gandhinagar came to be temporarily acquired by
the appellant – ONGC for the purpose of drilling PLAG. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated
28.4.1988 awarded Rs.0.80/- per sq mtr as rental
compensation for the temporarily acquired lands. The
claimants preferred reference under section 18 of the Act
before the learned Reference Court, who by impugned
common judgment and award, partly allowed the reference of
the original claimants and granted additional amount of
compensation of Rs. 12.70/- per sq.mtr per annum from the
date of taking possession for the period of three years over
Page 4 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
and above the rental compensation awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant is also directed to pay
interest on additional rental compensation at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of possession till realization. Feeling
aggrieved by the award, the appellant ONGC has preferred
the present appeals.
6. To assail impugned judgment and award, learned
advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker makes two fold submissions.
Firstly, she would submit that enhancement of compensation
to Rs.12.70 per sq mtr in one group of matter and to Rs.18.15
per sq mtr in another group of matters by the learned
Reference Court is in absence of any evidence. She would
further submit that the claimants have not produced any
exemplar, which is ordinarily made for proving the claims
before the learned Reference Court. She would further
submit that taking assistance from another award by the
learned Reference Court of the adjoining village is an
erroneous approach as in the said award, it was a permanent
acquisition. She would further submit that the reliance placed
upon GR dated 6.7.2015 is completely misconceived. That
resolution pertains to grant of government land on lease to
the ONGC and has no application to temporary acquisition of
private land u/s 35 of the Act. Moreover, such resolution
cannot be applied retrospectively as it has prospective effect
and in the present case, the acquisition is made for three
years commencing from 23.7.1997 and therefore, application
of GR by the learned Reference Court to decide the
compensation is totally erroneous approach. She would
Page 5 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
further submit that the learned Reference Court has
erroneously relied upon the judgment in First Appeal No.
7315/1995, as the said judgment is in regard to permanent
acquisition. She would further submit that temporary
acquisition u/s 35 of the Act is governed by the principles of
fair rental value and not market price. In any case, both
cannot be equated as here the land would return and vest in
the claimant after the 3 years but same is not the case with
regard to the permanent acquisition, hence the same
yardstick cannot be binding upon the temporary acquisition.
7. Lastly, on factual aspects, learned advocate Ms. Thaker
would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No. 6425/2014 (arising from FA 5100/2007, concerning the
same village Saij) fixed rental compensation at Rs.3.60 per sq
mtr and relying upon the said judgment, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.145 of 2021 and allied
matter has also fixed the rental compensation at Rs.3.60 per
sq mtr. She would further submit that award of rate of
interest @ 9% is also contrary to law. Relying upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of
Maharashtra v. Maimuma Banu, (2003) 7 SCC 448 ,
learned advocate Ms. Thaker would submit that there is no
statutory provision to grant 9% interest and interest would be
6% as available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
8. As far as smallness of the award and not to entertain the
appeals on the ground of smallness are concerned, she would
submit that temporary acquisition rent is most likely to be less
than Rs.5 lakh as the land is temporarily acquired for short
Page 6 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
period of time and then the land is repossessed and owned by
the owner. In that case, the matter is required to be decided
as per the Supreme Courts judgment and may not be disposed
of on smallness.
9. Continuing with the argument being hypothetical,
learned advocate Ms. Thaker would submit that the learned
Reference Court decided all the connected references filed by
the claimants against ONGC by a common judgment. In that
common judgment, some cases are above 5 lakh, while some
are below. She would further submit that If one appeal (less
than 5 lakh) is disposed of summarily and another (more than
5 lakh) is heard on merits, it will create ambiguity,
inconsistency, and multiplicity of judgments. Thus, she would
submit that all the First Appeals arising from the same
common judgment must be heard and decided together on
merits irrespective of the amount whether less than Rs.5 lakh
or more than Rs.5 lakh.
10. It is further argued that disposing one matter on
smallness and not the other due to higher amount would
result in two judgments, it may also result that in the event
the appeal (which is valued more than 5 lakh Rs.) is allowed
and the amount as sought to be reduced is reduced by relying
upon the Supreme Court judgment, then the said amount may
be a lesser award in comparison to the other appeal wherein
the said another appeal is disposed of only on smallness of
amount which would result into a higher amount being
awarded in the appeal which is not decided on merits. Hence,
it may create ambiguity as well as splitting of the common
Page 7 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
judgment and award.
11. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Ms. Dimple
Thaker prays to allow all the First Appeals and to quash and
set aside impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Reference Court.
12. As against aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Pinank Raiyani appearing for the claimants would submit that
several First Appeals filed by the ONGC have already been
dismissed by this Court, so also by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court under the principle of smallness of amount and
therefore, present group of First Appeals, wherein learned
advocate Ms. Thaker is appearing, cannot be treated
differently or distinctly. He would further submit that even
otherwise, before the learned Reference Court, the appellant
did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. He would
further submit that the appellant except filing of written
statement has done nothing to discharge the burden. He
would further submit that GR dated 6.7.2015 reflects policy
decision of the State Government, prescribing that rent for its
lands temporarily allotted to ONGC for drilling shall be levied
at 15% of the market value of the concerned land. He would
further submit that the learned Reference Court has merely
adopted this very method while determining fair rental
compensation for the claimants, whose lands were
compulsorily acquired for a period of three years between
1997 and 1999. He would further submit that it is not an
application of circular dated 6.7.2015 retrospectively, but the
method, which the State Government has adopted to charge
Page 8 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
rent from the ONGC for temporary drilling, has been adopted
and applied by the learned Reference Court in absence of any
other exemplar or any other material keeping in mind the
prevailing market price of the time period for which the land
in question was temporarily acquired and therefore, no
question of application of GR retrospectively arise, thereby
the learned Reference Court has rightly applied the method
prescribed therein. Therefore, he would submit that
submission of learned advocate Ms. Thaker that GR dated
6.7.2015 should not apply retrospectively has no force and
does not stand to leg.
13. As far as judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
rendered in First Appeal No.145 of 2021 and allied matter is
concerned, learned advocate Mr. Raiyani would submit that
the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 3681 of
2026 has stayed the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court and therefore, that judgment would not apply at
this juncture.
14. As far as judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Shanahi Nathaji Dabhi Vs. Deputy General Manager,
ONGC Ltd, CA 6413-6417 of 2014 is concerned, learned
advocate Mr. Raiyani would submit that this judgment would
not be applied as exemplar, as the acquisition of different
village having 15-30 km distance from village Dingucha. He
would further submit that except village Saij, which figures in
some of the present appeals, none of the other villages
forming part of the exemplar are contiguous or comparable.
Therefore, in that circumstance, he would submit fixing of
Page 9 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
compensation at Rs.3.60 per sq mtr as claimed by the
appellants is meritless.
15. As far as judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Maimuma Banu (supra) to award interest at the rate of 6%
on rental compensation is concerned, it is submitted that
reliance on the aforesaid decision is wholly misplaced. It is
the case where the Government took possession of land
through private negotiation prior to notifications under
Sections 4 and 6, where compensation was paid as "rent"
under Government Resolutions, and not under the Act. He
would further submit that there were no proceedings under
Section 35, and the Hon’ble Apex Court, in those peculiar
facts, granted 6% interest as an equitable measure for excess
occupation before Section 4 Notification. He would further
submit that in the present case, factual aspects are quite
different and therefore, the judgment would not be applicable.
16. As far as circular of State Government dated 25.10.2016
is concerned, he would submit that the ONGC falls in the
definition of “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and therefore, the aforesaid circular is
equally applied to the ONGC also and the First Appeals may
also be dismissed on the ground of smallness.
17. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Raiyani
prays to dismiss the First Appeals.
18. Learned advocates for both the sides have also placed on
record written arguments, which are taken on record.
Page 10 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
19. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, let observe that number of first appeals
filed by the ONGC challenging the rental compensation
determined by the learned Reference Court were dismissed on
the ground of principle of smallness of amount involved in
challenge by this Court so also by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court. The judgment rendered in First Appeal Nos.3997
of 2021 and 1584 of 2022 filed by the ONGC are the
exemplar, whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court
dismissed the First Appeals on the ground of principle of
smallness of amount. This Court has also dismissed several
First Appeals filed by the ONGC on the ground of application
of principle of smallness of amount.
20. Learned advocate Ms. Thaker submitted that the ONGC
is not governed by the Government notification dated
25.10.2016. However, while saying so, learned advocate Ms.
Thaker forgot to notice the judgment of the Constitutional
Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sukhdev Singh
and others Vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi
and another, 1975(1) SCC 421 , whereby the Hon’ble Apex
Court examined that whether statutory corporations carrying
on business of public importance are State within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not. Widening the
concept of “State”, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that those
corporations carrying on business of public importance are
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court put rider that despite
they are falling within the concept of State, their employees
Page 11 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
would not get protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of
India. The Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the status of
regulation framed under the ONGC Act, 1959 and under the
LIC Act, 1948, held as under:-
“111. The ultimate question which is relevant for our
purpose is whether such a corporation is an agency or
instrumentality of the government for carrying on a
business for the benefit of the public. In other words,
the question is, for whose benefit was the corporation
carrying on the business - When it is seen from the
provisions of that Act that on liquidation of the
Corporation, its assets should be divided among the
shareholders, namely, the central and State
governments and others, if any. the implication is
clear that the benefit of the accumulated income
would go to the central and State governments.
Nobody will deny that an agent has a legal personality
different from that of the principal. The fact that the
agent is subject to the direction of the principal does
not mean that he has no legal personality of his own.
Likewise, merely because a corporation has legal
personality of its own, it does not follow that the
corporation cannot be an agent or instrumentality of
the State, if it is subject to control of government in
all important matters of policy. No doubt, there might
be some distinction between the nature of control
exercised by principal over agent and the control
exercised by government over public corporation.
That, I think is only a distinction in degree. The crux
of the matter is that public corporation is a new type
of institution which has sprung from the new social
and economic functions of government and that it
therefore does not neatly fit into old legal categories.
Instead of forcing it into them, the latter should be
adapted to the needs of changing times and
conditions.”
21. Vide notification dated 25.10.2016, the State
Government has raised valuation of petty claim from Rs.2 lakh
Page 12 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
to Rs.5 lakh and directed to withdraw all the claim in Lok
Adalat case / First Appeal, wherein the amount is Rs.5 lakh or
less in Lok Adalat, with the rider that such withdrawal shall
not be treated as precedent. I am failed to understand how
the ONGC would not be abide by such notification, more
particularly, when in many other matters, the ONGC has
accepted the notification and allowed to dismiss the appeal on
the ground of smallness of amount. Perhaps due to obdurate
and intransigent approach, it has been insisted to pass
reasoned order in these matters though the amount involved
in these First Appeal is less than Rs.5 lakh and the same are
required to be dismissed on the ground of smallness of
amount as per Government notification dated 25.10.2016.
Yet, let examine the merits of the appeals.
22. The first contention raised by learned advocate Ms.
Thaker is that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First
Appeal No.145 of 2021 and other allied matter determined the
temporary rental compensation at Rs.3.60 per sq mtr relying
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Shanahi Nathaji Dabhi (supra). However, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in SLP No.3681 of 2026 has stayed implementation of
said judgment. Moreover, the judgment in case of Shanahi
Nathaji Dabhi (supra) is in regards to village Pethapur,
Shertha and Adalaj etc., whereas in the present matters, the
land of village Dingucha is temporarily acquired. The
distance of both the lands is 25 – 30 km except village Saij.
Therefore, there is no applicability of the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, as exemplar to determine the temporary
Page 13 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
rental compensation.
23. As far as judgment of Maimuma Banu (supra) is
concerned, it was a case where 6% interest is granted on rent,
whereby the land was possessed prior to issuance of
notification u/s 4 of the Act. The same would not apply to the
facts of the present case.
24. As far as submission of non-application of GR dated
6.7.2015 is concerned, whereby the Government itself
charged 15% of the market value as rent for its own land
given to the ONGC for drilling purpose is concerned. Learned
advocate Mr. Raiyani right pointed out that it is not a question
of applying GR dated 6.7.2015, but it is a case of applying
method to determine the temporary rental value to award the
compensation. The method can be adopted and adoption of
such method per se cannot be said that resolution has been
applied retrospectively. The learned Reference Court applied
the method of charging 15% of the market value of land to
determine rental value adopted by the State Government
through its resolution dated 6.7.2015 for the land which was
given to the ONGC for temporary drilling and found out the
market price of the land which was temporarily acquired for
the relevant time period and granted 15% thereon as
compensation.
25. It is also the case of the ONGC that no exemplar can be
applied on the temporary acquisition. According to this Court,
the learned Reference Court has rightly adopted the GR dated
6.7.2015 to apply the methodology of application of 15% of
Page 14 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026
C/FA/1139/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
the market value to determine the temporary compensation
for temporary acquisition. There cannot be any different and
distinct valuation, if the Government is entitled to get 15% of
the market value of the land when the Government itself is
giving its land to the ONGC for drilling in line of same
methodology. Ordinary person, whose lands are acquired for
temporary acquisition for drilling purpose, should also be
given 15% of the market valuation of the land of that year in
which it has been temporarily acquired. Thus, this Court finds
no error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Reference Court. Accordingly, all the First Appeals
deserve no consideration and are required to be dismissed.
26. Resultantly, all First Appeals sans merit and stand
dismissed accordingly.
27. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.
28. The learned Reference Court is directed to disburse the
amount of compensation deposited by the ONGC after
deducting Court fee to the claimants after due verification and
identification along with interest and after verifying their
right to claim the compensation.
29. Registry to maintain copy of this order in each matter.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Page 15 of 15
Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:11:32 IST 2026