GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED NEW DELHI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question falls for consideration and decision in this writ petition. The question is whether Ch. Venkateswara Rao who was functioning as the competent authority at the relevant point of time under the provisions of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, for short 'the Act', had determined compensation within the meaning of that term under Sec. 10(1) of the Act before his retirement with effect from 30-11-1992. If this question is answered positively, the writ petition is required to be allowed, and on the other hand, if this question is answered negatively, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition be summarised briefly as under: The petitioner is a statutory authority. It wanted to lay gas pipe line from Tatipaka to Kakinada (NFCL) covering a distance of 103 K.Ms. during the year 1990-91 and the pipe line had to pass through 52 villages. For laying this pipe line, land of the width of 18 meters over a length of 103 K.Ms. was required and therefore the petitioner invoked the provisions of the Act. Section 6 declarations were issued on 23-11-1990, 15-12-1990, 9-3-1991 and 6-3-1991. After these events, the competent authority issued notices to all the land owners calling upon them to file their claim petitions either personally or through their advocates for compensation payable in respect of the trees. It is borne out from the records that no owner has filed any application seeking compensation. It is the case of the petitioner that the then competent authority determined the compensation payable to each and every one of the owners of the trees and accordingly compensation was also paid to the land owners between 11-9-1991 and 25-11-1991. The then competent authority, Ch. Venkateswara Rao, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-11-1992. On 1-12-1992 the respondent No. 35, namely, V. V. Satyanarayana Raju happens to begone of the land owners, submitted a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner company pointing out the inadequacy of compensation fixed by the Competent authority and taking objection to the procedure adopted by the competent authority in fixing the compensation Again on 27-4-1993, Satyanarayana Raju made one more representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner authority. The representation submitted by the Satyanarayana Raju on 1-12-1992 was forwarded to the competent authority. By that time there was change in the incumbancy of the office of competent authority. Smt. K. Suneetha was the competent authority. She by her report dated 10-5-1993 submitted to the Senior Manager of the petitioner authority opined that the determination of the compensation made by her predecessor-in-office was in order and justifi Again, Satyanarayana Raju submitted one more representation on 28-10-1993 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner authority and this representation was forwarded again to the competent authority. By this time, there was again change in the incumbancy of the office of competent authority and one Mr. Nagendra Rao was the competent authority. Sri G. Nagendra Rao, in his report dated 28-12-1993 submitted to the Senior Manager of the petitioner-authority pointed out that his predecessor, Mr. Venkateswara Rao did not determine the compensation and what was paid to the owners was only adhoc compensation for the damages caused to the crops. He also opined that the rate of compensation paid to the owners was very much on lower side and he tentatively determined the compensation at Rs. 4,608/- per tree. In the said communication, he also said that he was proceeding with the award enquiry for the purpose of determining proper compensation payable to the land owners. By further communication dated 22-4-1994, Sri G. Nagendra Rao pointed out that before proceeding to determine the compensation, it was necessary to have 'dates of termination of operation' so that he could proceed further for determination of the compensation under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. By another letter dated 27-5-1994, Sri C. Nagendra Rao while informing the authority that the compensation had to be determined after conducting enquiry as required under Section 10 of the Act, requested the authority to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.67 crores as per the request contained in his earlier letter dated 28-12-1993. Then came the reply dated 9-1-1995 from the Senior Manager of the petitioner authority addressed to Sri B. Sreenivasulu who, in the meanwhile, was appointed as the competent authority wherein the competent authority was requested to drop all further proceedings pointing out that compensation was already determined and the owners also received the compensation amount. Sri B. Sreenivasulu replied to this letter on 24-1-1995 pointing out that the action taken by his immediate predecessor-in-office, namely, Sri G. Nagendra Rao was in order and legal and the request of the authority contained in the letter dated 9-1-1995 cannot be acceeded to. He also finally requested the authority to deposit sum of Rs. 1.67 crores.

(3.) At that stage, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 20-4-1995 assailing the validity of the letter dated 28-12-1993 written by G. Nagendra Rao, the then competent authority to the Senior Manager and also the validity of the letter dated 24-1-1995 of Sri. B. Sreenivasulu, the competent authority to the Senior Manager. This Court while issuing rule nisi on 24-4-1995 made an interim order staying all further proceedings before the competent authority. On service of notice a counter is filed on behalf of the competent authority; and a separate counter on behalf of the impleaded respondents land owners is also filed.