GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PATEL KESHAVLAL GOPALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.5506/2003 to 5514/2003 dated 17.09.2005, whereby, the references were partly allowed and the appellant-ONGC was held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act made a proposal for temporary acquisition of the lands belonging to the respondent-original claimant. After following due procedure, the lands came to be acquired. Award came to be passed by the competent authority fixing the amount of compensation.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The issue regarding grant of future rent came up for consideration of this Court earlier in a group of appeals being First Appeal No.792/2003 and allied matters. The said group of appeals came to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.03.2006. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference; '5.2 On the facts of the case, it is evident that the Reference Court has also determined the further rent which issue was not before it. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the observation or direction issued by the Reference Court in the operative part of the orders require to be quashed and set aside, is required to be accepted. If the said direction is allowed to remain then it would amount to granting the rent which is over the rent fixed by the appellant-O.N.G.C. from time to time. Moreover, the same has been fixed without considering as to what would be the future rent fixed by the appellant- O.N.G.C, which is beyond the scope of reference. Hence if the said observation is allowed to remain then, in that event such compensation would be much more than the amount which has been found to be adequate by the Court. 5.3 It may be noted that the Reference Court was dealing with a particular acquisition and it was not open for the said Court to pass an order in respect of future rent. Such an observation on the part of the Reference Court is clearly bad in law in view of the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the observations or direction issued by the Reference Court with regard to additional amount of compensation, requires to be quashed and set aside. 6.0 In the result, these appeals are allowed. The observation 'over the rent fixed by O.N.G.C. from time to time with the running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of due date of running till the day of payment is made', made by the Reference Court in the operative part of the impugned judgments and awards, is quashed and set aside. These appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.'