Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1452 (GUJ)

Chairman v. Urvashidevi Jaidipsinh Maharaul

2017-09-01

A.G.URAIZEE, R.SUBHASH REDDY

body2017
ORDER : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. These Misc. Civil Applications are filed seeking review of the common judgment dated 27.03.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 576 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 459 of 2013 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 577 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 929 of 2013 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 578 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2058 of 2013 to Letters Patent Appeal No. 688 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 7875 of 2013. The aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals were filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the original respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against the common judgment dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 459 of 2013 and other allied matters, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions by directing the appellants to deposit and pay the compensation as contemplated under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and as per awards dated 28.08.2012 and 18.09.2012, within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order with interest. 2. While disposing of the said Letters Patent Appeals, for the purpose of disbursement of amount of compensation deposited in the matters, this Court has issued some guidelines in paragraph No. 3 of the judgment. Said paragraph No. 3 reads as under: “3. We have heard Mr. Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the appellants and learned advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record. With a view to strike balance between the diverse interests of claimants and the appellant-Corporation, we lay down the following further guidelines in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Muljibhai Ajarambhai Harijan (supra) to be followed by the lower Courts in future while making disbursement of the deposited compensation by the appellant-Gas Authority of India Limited. (a) The entire awarded amount by Competent Authority u/s 10(1) of the Act shall be deposited with the learned District Judge u/s. 10(2) of the Act. (a) The entire awarded amount by Competent Authority u/s 10(1) of the Act shall be deposited with the learned District Judge u/s. 10(2) of the Act. (b) The original claimants shall be allowed to withdraw only 25% of deposited amount on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the learned District Judge whereas 25% of the amount shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimants without furnishing security. (c) The rest of the deposited amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit with any Nationalized Bank for earning interest initially for a period of one year. (d) If the calculation of the 50% of the claim of an individual claimant does not exceed Rs. 2,00,000/- then in that case, the whole of the amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn without any security. Thereafter with effect from 01.04.2016 a 10% rise on the principal amount may be added keeping in mind the present trend in the economy and interest may be calculated accordingly. (e) The applications under Section 10(2) of the Act which are pending before the learned District Judge shall be decided by the learned District Judge within a period of one year from today if the said proceedings are not stayed by any higher forum.” 3. These Misc. Civil Applications are filed stating that guidelines issued by this Court will operate on the appellants and will cause lot of financial burden. It is stated in the applications that as against the awards passed by the Competent Authority, it is open to the aggrieved person to seek interim relief by way of stay under section 10 of the Act and this Court has not considered the said provision while delivering the judgment. It is categorically stated that if such applications are filed seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 27.03.2015 only for the future cases to avoid financial burden and economic hardship to the appellants, the same will not have any bearing on the respondent claimants, whose disbursements were already made. It is further pleaded that from the month of April, 2015 to January, 2016, as the post of Competent Authority and Deputy Collector was lying vacant, no awards were passed. Further, with effect from 02.02.2016 to 06.8.2016 also, no awards could be passed due to non-availability of Competent Authority and Deputy Collector. It is further pleaded that from the month of April, 2015 to January, 2016, as the post of Competent Authority and Deputy Collector was lying vacant, no awards were passed. Further, with effect from 02.02.2016 to 06.8.2016 also, no awards could be passed due to non-availability of Competent Authority and Deputy Collector. As such, no impact was fallen adversely in terms of monetary aspects as per the guidelines issued in the judgment. Vide Gazette Notification dated 02.08.2016, Government of India appointed Competent Authority and Deputy Collector and now there is likelihood of awards being passed and if the guidelines are complied, it will have huge financial implication and if the judgment is not reviewed, the appellants will be put to irreparable loss. It is also stated that there are about 1245 cases remanded back to the 3rd respondent for adjudication by different district Courts and it is likely that revised awards would be passed by the 3rd respondent in regular acquisition cases. 4. Heard Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate and Advocate General with Mr. Vishwas K. Shah, learned advocate on record for the applicants, Mr. M.T.M Hakim, learned advocate for the opponent No. 1 and Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the opponent No. 2. 5. Learned Advocate General, Mr. Kamal Trivedi would contend that under the scheme of the Act, aggrieved by the award passed by the Competent Authority, either of the parties can approach the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated and is empowered to determine the correctness of the award passed by the Competent Authority. In view of the same, aggrieved person can also seek interim relief against the award passed by the Competent Authority and appropriate orders can be passed, having regard to the quantum of compensation determined on case to case basis. In that view of the matter, these guidelines would operate harshly and adversely against the interest of the appellants. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M.T.M Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the opponent No. 1 submitted that as the authorities concerned were not depositing the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority within 21 days, as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules and as such, the same necessitated to issue guidelines in the judgment for deposit and disbursement of compensation. 7. M.T.M Hakim, learned advocate appearing for the opponent No. 1 submitted that as the authorities concerned were not depositing the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority within 21 days, as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules and as such, the same necessitated to issue guidelines in the judgment for deposit and disbursement of compensation. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we have perused the common judgment of this Court on which, review is sought and other material on record. We have also perused the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 8. Under the scheme of the Act, if any person suffered damage, loss or sustained injuries on account of the proposal to lay pipeline on the land, the Central Government, State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, is liable to pay compensation to such person for such damage, loss or injury. The Competent Authority notified under the scheme of the Act is empowered to assess the compensation under section 10(1) of the Act. Under section 10(2) of the Act, if the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) of section 10 is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of compensation shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction, the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by the District Judge. From a perusal of the guidelines issued earlier, this Court permitted for withdrawal of 25% of the deposited amount of compensation on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the District Judge and further 25% of the amount determined is permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimants without furnishing security and rest of the amount was ordered to be deposited in the nationalized for earning interest initially for a period of one year. Further, it is stated that if the calculation of 50% of the amount of the individual claimant does not exceed Rs. 2,00,000/-, the whole amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn without furnishing security. Thereafter, with effect from 01.04.2016, 10% rise on the principal amount is ordered to be added keeping in mind the present trend in the economy and interest to be calculated accordingly. 2,00,000/-, the whole amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn without furnishing security. Thereafter, with effect from 01.04.2016, 10% rise on the principal amount is ordered to be added keeping in mind the present trend in the economy and interest to be calculated accordingly. From a perusal of the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 10 of the Act, it makes us clear that either of the parties, if aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed under subsection (7) of section 10 of the Act, is given right to approach the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the land or part thereof was acquired. In cases where compensation is awarded exorbitantly, it is always open to the Central Government, State Government or the Corporation to immediately approach the District Judge and also to obtain stay of implementation of the award itself. In such a situation, it is always open for the concerned District Judge to exercise his/her powers by using judicial discretion so as to grant stay or not. In situations where the District Judge finds that the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority is just and reasonable, he/she may allow entire compensation to be withdrawn either by imposing any conditions or not. After perusing the provisions of section 10 of the Act, we are of the view that whether what percentage of compensation determined by Competent Authority is allowed to be withdrawn or not is a matter which has to be decided on case to case basis. There cannot be any guideline which will affect the judicial discretion conferred on the District Judge under section 10(2) of the Act. We are in agreement with the submission made by learned Advocate General, Mr. Kamal Trivedi that while passing the order, this Court has not considered the relevant provisions particularly section 10(2) of the Act. 9. In view of the apparent error on the face of the order, we are of the view that it is a fit case to allow these application for review, by recalling the common judgment dated 27.03.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 576 of 2014 and allied matters to the extent of guidelines issued in the said order. Learned Advocate General, Mr. Learned Advocate General, Mr. Kamal Trivedi appearing for the applicant herein assured to deposit the amount of compensation whenever it is decided by the Competent Authority within a period of 21 days, as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Rules, subject to further orders to be passed by the appropriate authority under section 10(2) of the Act. We place on record such statement made by the learned Advocate General. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these applications for review and recall the order to the extent of guidelines covered by para 3 of the common judgment dated 27.03.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 576 of 2014 and allied matters. We hope and trust that whenever awards are passed by the Competent Authority, the appellants herein shall keep in mind Rule 6 of the Rules referred above and deposit the compensation within the time, subject to the remedy available under section 10(2) of the Act. These Misc. Civil Applications are allowed with directions and observations as indicated above and no order as to costs.