Skip to content


Kasam Ibrahim HusseIn Bathia and anr. Vs. Project Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commissioner and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1986)1GLR526
AppellantKasam Ibrahim HusseIn Bathia and anr.
RespondentProject Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commissioner and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....under the provision of the oil and natural gas commission act, 1959 (no. 43 of 1959) read with the land acquisition act, 1894, to acquire survey no. 449 of panoli belonging to the petitioners and to direct them to pay compensation as determined under the provisions of the land acquisition act. it is further prayed by the petitioners that respondents may be directed to pay the outstanding compensation and rent as per panchnama to the petitioners herein.2. it is the case of the petitioners that on or about 2nd october 1980, the respondents entered into their land measuring 5 acres 1 guntha for drilling operations and also for providing quarters to the workers of such drilling operations. the petitioners further submit that the lands have been made useless by such operations and even the.....
Judgment:

P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.

1. The petitioners herein have come forward with this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of an appropriate writ, direction 91 Order directing the respondents to take appropriate steps under the provision of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 (No. 43 of 1959) read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire Survey No. 449 of Panoli belonging to the petitioners and to direct them to pay compensation as determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is further prayed by the petitioners that respondents may be directed to pay the outstanding compensation and rent as per panchnama to the petitioners herein.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that on or about 2nd October 1980, the respondents entered into their land measuring 5 Acres 1 Guntha for drilling operations and also for providing quarters to the workers of such drilling operations. The petitioners further submit that the lands have been made useless by such operations and even the agreed rent to be paid has not been paid by the respondents herein. The petitioners had issued notice on 7th May 1982 calling upon the respondents to pay compensation for use and occupation of the land and also calling upon them to acquire the said land. The respondents apart from denying the taking of possession of the land mentioned in the notice stated that they are not inclined to acquire the said land at present. Hence the petitioners have come forward with the abovesaid Special Civil Application.

3. Mr. V.J. Desai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, pointing out proviso to Section 36 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, contended that the respondents may be directed to acquire the land according to the proviso to Section 36. It is clear from the facts of the case that the respondents entered into the possession of the land in dispute by virtue of the power conferred upon them under Section 25 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959. In this connection, we may usefully refer to Section 24 of the said Act also Section 24 of the Act reads as follows:

24. Any land required by the Commission for carrying out its functions this Act shall be deemed to be needed for a public purpose and such land shall be acquired for the Commission under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

It is also clear from the facts of the case that the petitioners and the respondents have entered into an agreement as early as 2nd day of October 1980 and in that agreement it has been specifically stated:

AND WHEREAS the owner(s) knowing the purpose for which the Commission desirous to enter into possession of the said land, has/have agreed that the Commission shall continue in uninterrupted possession of the said land until the acquisition proceedings under the said act are completed or the lands are derequisitioned.

Hence there is a specific understanding between the parties that there may be de-requisitioning of the land by the respondents concerned. The petitioners being the parties to the said agreement wherein a clear understanding emerged with regard to the de-requisitioning of the land cannot now by way of this Special Civil Application demand for the acquisition of the land by the respondents herein invoking the proviso to Section 36 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 36 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as follows:

36. Power to enter and take possession, and compensation on restoration:

(1) on payment of such compensation, or on execution of such agreement, or on making a reference under Section 35, the Collector may enter upon and take possession of the land, and use permit the use thereof in accordance with the terms of the said notice.

(2) on the expiration of the term, the Collector shall make or tender to the persons interested compensation for the damage (if any) done to the land and not provided for by the agreement, and shall restore the land to the persons interested therein: Provided that, if the land has become permanently unfit to be used for the purpose for which it was immediately before the commencement of such term, and if the persons interested shall so required, the appropriate Government shall proceed under this Act to Acquire the land as if it was needed permanently for a public purpose or for a company.

This is not a case where the Collector has started the land acquisition proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; nor has he taken steps under Section 35 for temporary occupation. All these acts were done by virtue of Sections 24 and 25 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959, and also by virtue of the agreement, referred above. Hence it is not possible for the petitioners to invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to get the benefits for the acts committed by the respondents under the provisions of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959.

When especially there is a specific understanding between the parties that any time the land will be de-requisitioned, we are afraid the petitioners cannot claim any right directing the respondents to acquire the land. No doubt, for any damage caused to the land, the petitioners can have right to file the suit for damages if advised and if law permits.

4. As it is, we do not find any merits in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein and accordingly this Special Civil Application is dismissed. Notice discharged. No Costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //