JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed in Civil Misc (PMP) 38 of 2014 between Sri Sadhan Debnath, Claimant-petitioner and the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 3 others, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge, Sipahijala, Bishalgarh, fixed compensation for 110 nos. of rubber trees in question of 8 to 10 years old @ Rs. 9000 per tree and 50 nos. of rubber trees of 16 to 20 years old @ Rs. 5000/- per tree. The petitioners also preferred this application for exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court against the Order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sipahijala, Bishalgarh in Civil Misc.(PMP) No. 38 of 2014 between Sri Sadhan Debnath claimant-petitioner and the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 3 others respondents, whereby and whereunder the learned Addl. District Judge, Sipahijal, Bishalgarh fixed compensation for 110 nos in question of Rubber Trees for 8-10 years old @ Rs. 9000/- per tree and 50 nos of rubber trees for 16-20 years old @ Rs. 5000/- per tree in violation of the provisions of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962 (P&MP Act, 1962) and the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1962. 2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of Civil Misc (PMP) 38 of 2014. The genesis of the case is that he is the possessor of the land under plot no. 1418(p) under khatian no. 163 of Mouja Radhanagar measuring 0.50 acres of land and he was enjoying the possession of the land by planting rubber trees and other valuable trees including fruits by investing good amount of money. On 02.03.11 gazette notification was made by the Respondents for acquiring 0.50 acres of land appertaining to the aforesaid plot in possession of the claimant petitioner for the purpose of laying down of gas pipe line for the use of Thermal Project in Palatana, Udaipur of the then South Tripura District, now Gomati District as per provision of section 3(1) of the Act and as per provision of Section 5(1)(2) of the Act objection was invited from the claimant petitioner against the aforesaid acquisition and the claimant petitioner submitted objection claiming compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- for 160 numbers of rubber trees, Rs. 20,000/- for Tube Well and bamboo fencing and Rs. 6,25,000/- as cost of the acquired land. But the competent authority did not consider the aforesaid claim of the claimant petitioner and by order dt. 04.01.12 gave compensation amounting to Rs. 1,47,000/-@Rs. 800 and Rs. 900/- for 109 and 50 numbers of rubber trees respectively and Rs. 3000/- for the tube well and Rs. 12,000/- for the bamboo fencing. The competent authority also gave Rs. 4000/- as 10% of the cost of the acquired land. 3. The claimant petitioner being dissatisfied with aforesaid compensation amount claimed Rs. 10,000/- x 160 nos of rubber trees = Rs. 16,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land. 4. On the other hand the opposite parties contested this case by filing Written Objection and they stated that the compensation for the aforesaid trees and the acquired land assessed by OP No. 4 was accepted by the claimant petitioner as adequate, reasonable and sufficient. 5. In view of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed in connection with this case: 1) Is the case maintainable? 2) Is the case barred by Law of Limitation? 3) Is the case bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of parties? 4) Is the compensation fixed by the competent authority adequate and proper? 5) Is the petitioner entitled to get enhancement of compensation; if so, to what extent? 6. The claimant petitioner Sri Sadhan Debnath adduced himself as witness and he submitted examination in chief by affidavit in this case and he was cross examined by the OP side. The claimant petitioner also adduced some documents and those were marked as exhibits as follows: 1) Exhibit 1: Copy of Memorandum dt. 3.9.1996 of TFDPC. 2) Exhibit 2: Copy of assessment of compensation of the rubber plantation of TRPC dt. 29.4.2008. 3) Exhibit 3: Copy of memorandum dt. 5.10.2010 of TRPCL. 4) Exhibit 4: Copy of calculation of capitalized value of a rubber tree by the TRPCL dt. 02.11.2011. 5) Exhibit 5: Payment order dt. 12.04.11. 6) Exhibit 6: Power of Attorney. 7) Exhibit 7: Letter dt. 11.04.2012 of the Joint Rubber Production Commissioner Mr. J.C. Das with cost benefit analysis per rubber tree. 7. 5.10.2010 of TRPCL. 4) Exhibit 4: Copy of calculation of capitalized value of a rubber tree by the TRPCL dt. 02.11.2011. 5) Exhibit 5: Payment order dt. 12.04.11. 6) Exhibit 6: Power of Attorney. 7) Exhibit 7: Letter dt. 11.04.2012 of the Joint Rubber Production Commissioner Mr. J.C. Das with cost benefit analysis per rubber tree. 7. While deciding the issues No. 1, 2 and 3, the court below has observed that these three issues raises question regarding maintainability of this case on technical ground. The claimant petitioner fled the application under Section 10 of the Act being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the competent authority for damaging the rubber trees. Section 10 of the Act talks about compensation and it says that any person who has sustained damaged or loss due to laying down of the pipeline by the competent authority is entitled to get compensation from that competent authority and for such type of matter the District Judge or equivalent is competent to determine the compensation due to removal of trees, standing crops etc. 8. The OP side failed to adduce any document to substantiate their contention that the claimant was duly intimated. Although they adduced Exhibit 1 which is the payment receipt of award to the affected people and it reveals that the claimant petitioner Sadhan Debnath at serial No. 18 received compensation of Rs. 1,47,200/- on 9.1.12 but there is no signature of the petitioner on the payment receipt. The OP side also adduced another payment receipt regarding compensation for the acquired land as Exhibit H and it reveals that the petitioner was given Rs. 4000/- as compensate for the acquired land on 9.1.12 and his signature is also there but facts remains that as per the provision of Rule 5 of PMP Rules 1963 it is duty upon the competent authority to give intimation of award to the petitioner in proper way and in the case in hand no such intimation was given. 9. In this regard the Hon'ble High Court while disposing CRP cases no. 12 of 2016, 142 of 2015, 50 of 2015, 54 of 2015, 54 of 2016 and 59 of 2016 by order and judgment dated. 29.09.2016 in para no. 9. In this regard the Hon'ble High Court while disposing CRP cases no. 12 of 2016, 142 of 2015, 50 of 2015, 54 of 2015, 54 of 2016 and 59 of 2016 by order and judgment dated. 29.09.2016 in para no. 37 gave specific observation that limitation to file application before the District Judge for enhancement of compensation in terms of section 10(3) of the PMP Act will commence only on receipt of the limitation. 10. Therefore, in the instant case the limitation of 90 days cannot be taken into consideration as the competent authority did not give due intimation to the petitioner about the award. 11. So far non joinder of party is concerned the including of ONGC Ltd. a Union Govt. concerned as necessary party No. 1, & 2 sufficient to hold that the Union Govt. was duly made the party in this case. 12. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the present application under section 10 of the Act is very much maintainable and it is not barred by limitation or due to non joinder or mis-joinder of parties. Accordingly, all the three issues are answered in affirmative. 13. While deciding the issues nos. 4 and 5, the court below has observed that on perusal of the aforesaid documents it is found that the value of one rubber tree was assessed depending on the age of the tree. In the aged 8-10 years old and 50 nos. of trees were aged 16-20 years old. On perusal of Exhibit 7 it is found that the value of a rubber tree which is aged in between 8-10 years will approximately be Rs. 9000/- per tree. Similarly a rubber tree aged in between 16-20 years will be priced at Rs. 5000/-. 14. Therefore, the rate assessed by the competent authority as compensation for the rubber tree was on the lower side and the petitioner is entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 9000/- x 110 nos of rubber trees = Rs. 9,90,000/- and @ Rs. 5000/- x 50 trees = Rs. 2,50,000/-, in total Rs. 12,40,000/-. 15. So far cost of the acquired land is concerned, it is evident from Exhibit H that Rs. 9000/- x 110 nos of rubber trees = Rs. 9,90,000/- and @ Rs. 5000/- x 50 trees = Rs. 2,50,000/-, in total Rs. 12,40,000/-. 15. So far cost of the acquired land is concerned, it is evident from Exhibit H that Rs. 4000/-@ 10% as cost of the land was given to the petitioner as compensation and considering the nature and class of the land as well as the location the court below was of the opinion that the compensation of Rs. 4000/- was adequate and need no enhancement. Therefore, the issues no. 4 and 5 were also answered in affirmative. 16. Finally, by the order dated 20.11.2019, the court below has observed in the following manner: The claimant petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 12,40,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh forty thousand) only in total. The opposite parties are directed to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of 45 days from today to the claimant petitioners and the amount paid if any, shall be deducted from the total compensation. If the opposite parties fails to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of expiry of 45 days till deposit of the amount. 17. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 20.11.2019, the petitioners herein have approached this court filing the instant civil revision petition. 18. Mr. R. Dasgupta, counsel for the ONGC-petitioners argued on the point of limitation and jurisdiction and unreasonable fixation of amount of compensation. 19. While discussing on the point of limitations, the counsel for ONGC-petitioners has not placed anything on record to show that on which date the copy of the award has been served on the claimants and whether the limitation period of 90 days was within or after in filing of the claim before the court below. Hence, the point on limitation is negative. 20. While discussing on the point of jurisdiction, this court is of the view that the District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 is empowered to entertain the claims and passing an award of compensation. But whereas in pursuant of the notification dated 24th July, 2018 the powers have been delegated from all District Judges to all Additional District Judges for resolving the disputes relating to the fixation of the compensation. 21. But whereas in pursuant of the notification dated 24th July, 2018 the powers have been delegated from all District Judges to all Additional District Judges for resolving the disputes relating to the fixation of the compensation. 21. Further with regard to the separation of judicial districts this court is of the opinion that wherever the dispute is falling in the judicial district of the other judicial district, mere making an argument before the court in a routine manner that the application cannot be entertained on the grounds of courts having no jurisdiction cannot be accepted in all pending cases. The ONGC-petitioners have not placed on record any orders obtained by high court in the form of transfer of ONGC cases from one district court to other district court having territorial jurisdiction. Hence, no case on the point of jurisdiction. The Administrative instructions of High Court of Tripura in respect of giving additional responsibilities to lower judiciary is not relevant to the facts of the case on the point of jurisdiction. 22. Hence, this court is of the view that the court below has rightly assessed the loss sustained by the claimant and fixed fair compensation. 23. In view of the above discussion, the civil revision petition stands dismissed affirming the order dated 20.11.2019 passed in Civil Misc (PMP) 38 of 2014 by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.