GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court, has arisen in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner- appellant herein, Gas Authority of India Limited, has filed the petition questioning the order of the competent authority under the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 in respect of determination of compensation to the land owners.

(2.) The petitioner-appellant is a statutory authority. In the process of laying gas pipelines from Tatipaka to Kakinada, covering a distance of 103 Kms. during the year 1990-91, it is alleged, certain lands belonging to respondents 2 to 186 were involved. It appears, after declaration under Section 6 and the process of laying pipelines commenced, the competent authority under the Act issued notices to all the land owners calling upon them to file their claim petitions, either personally or through their advocates for compensations. According to the petitioner-appellant, the competent authority determine, the compensation payable to each of the owners and owners were also paid compensation. It is stated, however, that the then competent authority, Ch.Venkateswara Rao, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-11-1992. On 1-12-1992, one of the respondents, V.V.Satyanarayana Raju submitted a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant-Company and alleged that compensation fixed by the competent authority was inadequate and the procedure adopted by him in fixing the compensation was improper. He made yet another representation on 27-4-1993 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant-company which representation was forwarded to the competent authority under the Act. Successor incumbent - Smt. K.Suneetha submitted a report to the Senior Manager of the appellant that determination of compensation by her predecessor-in-office was in order and justified. Satyanarayana Raju submitted a fresh representation on 28-10-1993 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant. This time also the Chairman and Managing Director forwarded the representation to the competent authority. Smt. K.Suneetha, however, has since relinquished office and Sri C.Nagendra Rao, the new incumbent, submitted a report dated 28-12-1993 to the Senior Manager of the appellant stating that his predecessor, Mr. Venkateswara Rao had not determined compensation and money paid to the owners was only ad hoc 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 G.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 appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.67 crore as per the request contained in his letter dated 28-12-1993. This, however, was replied by the Senior Manager of the appellant and a request was made to the competent authority to drop all further proceedings as compensation was already determined and the owners had received the compensation amount. Sri G. Nagendra Rao, had, however, relinquished office and the new incumbent Sri B. Srinivasulu had succeeded him. Sri Srinivasulu replied to the communication from the Senior Manager of the appellant dated 9-1-1995 that the action by his immediate predecessor-in-office was in order and legal and the request to drop all proceedings could not be acceded to. He reiterated the demand of deposit of the amount of Rs. 1.67 crore.

(3.) Appellant had moved this Court and questioned the validity of the fresh or further proceedings under Section 10 of the Act by the competent authority in cases in which Sri Ch.Venkateswara Rao had already paid compensation and Smt. K.Suneetha, his successor competent authority, had found that compensation was duly paid to the land owners.