In this group of petitions in fact on 12/3/3012 this Court passed the following order.
" These orders were dictated in the open Court. However before they are put up for signature, Shri Aspi Kapadia for Gujarat State Petronet Limited submits that in fact he has instructions to make specific submission before the Court in respect of the order challenged in Special Civil Application No. 1774 of 2012 and the order made which is subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No. 3110 of 23012.
In fact while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 3110 of 2012 this Court also observed that liberty to apply is already reserved. In that view of the matter these orders are not signed today and both the matters are adjourned and kept for hearing on 19/3/2012. No further time shall be granted in the matters. Office is directed to place copy of this order in both the matters so that it explains earlier two orders and now both the matters be kept together on 19/3/2012".
Learned advocates have agreed for final disposal of these two matters, hence they are heard together and decided by way of this common order.
The entire controversy is in a very narrow compass as the petitioners had to file Special Civil Application No. 1774 of 2012 challenging the order dated 14/12/2011 passed by District Collector, respondent no.1, in purported exercise of the power under section 10(2) of the Gujarat Water And Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right Of User In Land) Act, 2000 (herein after referred to as 'GWGP Act' for brevity), for remanding the matter to the competent authority to decide the compensation afresh under section 10(1) of the GWGP Act.
The respondent no.1 passed an order on 23/2/2012 enhancing the compensation amount and determined compensation to the tune of Rs.9,86,000/-. That order is subject matter of challenge in the subsequent petition being Special Civil Application No. 3110 of 2012.
Learned advocate for the petitioners in both these petitions contended that plain reading of provision of section 10 and scheme of the GWGP Act would persuade this Court to take a view that the respondent no.1, i.e. Collector of the District is under an obligation to determine the compensation to be awarded under this Act and under the provision of Section 10(2), as the wording employed in the section would not lead to any other interpretation or scope and, therefore the order dated 14/12/2011 is required to be quashed and set aside and the subsequent order dated 23/2/2012 which is subject matter of petition being Special Civil Application No. 3110 of 2012 is also required to be quashed and set aside as the same order was passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
Learned advocate for the petitioners invited this Court's attention to various sections and contended that the compensation of the nature provided in section namely section 10(2) of the GWGP Act is the compensation which could have been decided and determined by the Collector as the earlier order of compensation by the competent authority made on 30/10/2010 was not satisfactory and in terms of the statutory provision when petitioners were entitled to approach the District Collector for determination of the compensation, the District Collector was under an obligation to decide the same himself on consideration of the aspects narrated under section 10 & 11 of the GWGP Act. Therefore, the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order is required to be issued by commanding the Collector to pass appropriated order in exercise of power under section 10(2) of the GWGP Act, and learned advocate does not intend to canvass submission on merits as that would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
Learned advocate Mr. Aspi Kapadia appearing for respondent no.3, i.e. acquiring body and/or the Corporation has contended that the power to remand is required to be read in provision of section 10(2) of the GWGP Act, as when there exists an authority in the first instance to decide the compensation on the basis of the material, and when either the party is given an opportunity to approach the Collector of the area, then even if it is not provided in clear terms in section 10(2), the power to remand cannot be ousted and hence this Court may not interfere with the order. Even otherwise also the order passed by the Collector subsequently on 23/2/2012 and challenged in Special Civil Application No. 3110 of 2012 is not justified in view of the fact that the petitioners have in fact been paid the requisite compensation for all their claims and petitioners are filing the petition for extracting more money by taking advantage of the provision of law.
Learned advocate for the Corporation has further submitted as under:
(1) Crop compensation of Rs.43,36,309/- is already paid to the petitioners. Competent authority has on receiving order of remand of the High Court again assessed compensation and awarded additional compensation of Rs.68,040/-
(2) ROU (Right of user) area where under pipeline is laid is consisting of only 4 survey numbers, whereas the compensation claimed by petitioners are in respect of 13 other survey numbers, where pipeline is not laid.
(3) The so called damage to the irrigation system of the petitioners which is being made basis for further compensation was in fact repaired by the respondent Corporation and thereafter additional compensation of Rs.75,000/- was paid for repairs. Therefore this is nothing but an attempt to extract more money. There is nothing on record to substantiate claim made by the petitioners.
(4) In case if the Court is inclined to remand the matter accepting submission of learned advocate for the petitioners, then all contentions of respondent Corporation be kept open and they be permitted to urge before the Collector.
(5) As the petitioners are also aggrieved by order dated 20/3/2012, and therefore, Corporation be permitted to make contention in their behalf also.
Learned AGP Ms. Asmita Patel contended that the power to remand cannot be ousted on plain reading of section 10(2) of the GWGP Act and, therefore, she supported the submission canvassed on behalf of the Corporation.
This Court is of the considered view that as the entire controversy is in a narrow compass, it is required to be examined from that angle only, and the Court need not go into merits of the matter as the Court is inclined to accept the submission of learned advocate for the petitioners.
At this stage learned advocate for the Corporation submitted that if the Court is of the view that the matter be decided by Collector, let the matter be remanded to the Collector and he be directed to decide the aspect of compensation himself without further relegating petitioners to the competent authority and while doing so, the Court may keep contentions of the Corporation open to raise in respect of justification of even awarding Rs.9,86,000/-.
In view of this clear consent coming forward from advocate for contesting respondent, the Court need not elaborate upon further aspects. Suffice it to say that respondent no.,1 i.e the Collector, Valsad, shall himself decide the aspect of compensation in exercise of the power conferred upon him under section 10(2) of the GWGP Act, and pass reasoned order after hearing both the sides, that is the petitioners as well as the Corporation. The Court has given opportunity to both the sides to take up all the contentions as if the Collector was deciding the application of the petitioners afresh and therefore the observations made herein above also will not come in his way, but it would not be open to the Collector to remand the matter to competent authority as this Court has specifically ordered herein above.
In view of this, both the orders are quashed and set aside. Notice discharged in Special Civil Application No.1774 of 2012. Both the petitions are disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
As the aspect of compensation is going on since long, it is hereby directed that the Collector, Valsad, shall decide the same as soon as possible, preferably six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, wherein both the sides have agreed that avoidable adjournments will not be sought.
[ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn Top