RAMANLAL GOVINDLAL PARIKH Vs. ONGC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application has been filed by late Shri Parikh Ramlal Govindlal challenging the order dated 31.3.1994 passed by the Jt. Distt. Judge, Mehsana under Sec. 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition etc.) Act, 1962. (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1962'). During the pendency of this Special Civil Application, on the death of Parikh Ramlal Govindlal, one Deviben has been substituted as his heir.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner and occupant of land bearing Survey No. 1953 and 1954 in village Kadi, District Mehsana Proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1962 for acquiring the right of user for the purpose of laying down pipelines from junction point to GGS/CTF South Kadi in Kadi oil field by the respondent Oil and Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the ONGC'). After completing the necessary formalities on 23.5.1974, the original petitioner had executed necessary Kabulatnama. Thereafter the pipelines were laid dov/n in the land admeasuring 14 Ares and 25 sq. metres of Survey No. 1954 and 20 Ares and 85 sq. metres in the land of Survey No. 1953. In the Kabulatnama, some details of the standing trees and plants were given. The petitioner claimed compensation as against the trees for a sum of Rs. 8300/-. He also claimed compensation for the land in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The Competent Officer, under the Act of 1962, considering the soil, situation and rising trend of the land value in last 10 years, determined the market value of the land at Rs. 225/- per Are and awarded compensation, 10% of the same at Rs. 22.50 per Are for acquisition of right of user under Sec. 10 (4) of the Act of 1962. In view of this, the Competent Authority calculated the compensation at Rs. 2,563/75.

(3.) The matter was carried to the court of the Jt. District Judge, Mehsana under Sec. 10 of the Act of 1962 at the instance of the original petitioner Parikh Ramlal Govindlal. The learned Jt. District Judge, in a detailed and well reasoned order, has stated that the claimant did not led any evidence with respect to the actual loss. He found that there is nothing in the statement of claimant as to how many trees have been uprooted. The Jt. District Judge also considered the statement of one Virendra Mehta, Superintending Engineer, wherein he has stated that no damage was caused to the trees during the laying down of the pipelines. Thus, considering the entire materials on record, the Learned Judge dismissed the Civil Misc. Application.