OIL INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.7797/2017 and Mr. R Sarmah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.6290/2017. Also heard Ms. M Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 respectively being the Government of Assam in the Revenue Department and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector Tinsukia and Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management (LR) Department, Government of Assam.

(2.) Certain land of the respondent No.3, Nandalal and Sons Tea Industries Private Ltd. of Chabua in WP(C)No.7797/2017, to be referred to as the land owner, had been taken over by the writ petitioner Oil India Ltd., sometime in the year 2000 for their own operational purpose. The issue raised by the land owner before the State respondent authorities is that no compensation as payable under the law had been paid to them by the petitioner OIL India Ltd., for their land having been taken over. The process resulted in an earlier proceeding being WP(C)No.1680/2002 and other writ petitions. In paragraph 9 of the judgment dtd. 5/4/2011 in WP(C) No.1680/2002 and other writ petitions, it has been provided as extracted:

(3.) A reading of the afore-extracted paragraph 9 of the judgment dtd. 5/4/2011 in WP(C)No.1680/2002 and other writ petitions makes it discernible that the Division Bench had distinguished the period of taking over the land by the OIL India Ltd. into two parts. The first part being the stage prior to issuing of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894) and the other part being the period subsequent to issuing of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act of 1894. In the premises, the Division Bench provided that the claim of the land owner for compensation for the period prior to the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act of 1894 being issued, the Deputy Commissioner Tinsukia would take a decision after hearing both the parties and strictly in accordance with the law applicable thereto. But the issue would be independent of the one for compensation under the Act of 1894. In other words, the Division Bench has made it explicitly clear that for the period prior to issuing of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act of 1894, the Deputy Commissioner would take a decision on the amount of compensation that the land owner may be entitled to and such decision shall be independent of the compensation that is required to be paid under the Act of 1894.