Land Losers Not Prohibited From Claiming Enhanced Compensation In Absence Of Agreement Finalising Initial Determination: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) has held that compensation determined by the competent authority under Section 10(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of User in Land) Act, 1962 (the 1962 Act) shall be treated as a determination at the first instance when there is no agreement between the parties making such determination final and binding. Therefore, land losers cannot be prohibited from seeking enhanced compensation under Section 10(2) of the 1962 Act if they are aggrieved by the initial determination.
The present intra court appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Single Judge by which it allowed a writ petition filed by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL). The IOCL contended that reassessment of compensation payable for acquiring rights of user in the Appellant's land was impermissible.
The Respondent/IOCL submitted that the total compensation has been arrived at and paid in two instalments which have been acknowledged by appellants and as such determination of the compensation has been made in terms of Section 10(1) and the competent authority has no jurisdiction to review its decision as no such power has been conferred on the competent authority under the 1962 Act.
The court observed that the Appellant's claims in the representation made on 17.02.2022 related to the period beyond the initial 60 days for which the compensation had already been computed and paid. Therefore, it was not a claim for enhanced compensation at the earlier rate of Rs. 450 per decimal but a fresh claim for additional compensation at Rs. 1250 per decimal for the unpaid period. Since this was a new claim, the competent authority was authorised to determine compensation at the first instance under section 10 of the 1962 Act.
It held that “Therefore, the order passed by the competent authority is not an order passed reviewing its earlier decision but it is a fresh decision taken for the first time in respect of the claim made by the appellant in the representation dated 17.02.2022. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the order passed by the competent authority is not an order in review but an order passed at the “first instance” and therefore the competent authority cannot be stated to have acted beyond the jurisdiction nor can be stated to have become functus officio.”
It further observed that since there was no admission or agreement by the Appellants to accept compensation at Rs. 450 per decimal without raising any objections, the determination by the competent authority must be considered as an initial determination under section 10 of the 1962 Act. If the Appellants feel aggrieved, they have a right under section 10(2) of the 1962 Act to seek enhanced compensation before the District Court. IOCL is not permitted to object to this right especially in absence of any evidence showing unequivocal acceptance of the earlier amount.
It held that the appellants are entitled to approach the concerned District Court in Sub Section (2) of Section 10 of the 1962 Act claiming enhanced compensation over and above the compensation of Rs. 450 per decimal calculated for a period of 60 days by filing appropriate application before the 21. concerned District Court.
The court further observed that panchanama is a vital document to be taken note of while conducting an enquiry for grant of compensation under sub rule 3 of rule 4 of the 1963 rules. Therefore, whatever has been recorded in the panchnama cannot be disputed by IOCL at this stage or at any anterior point of time.
It concluded that “the competent authority had not reassessed compensation payable by IOCL to the appellant as it is compensation which has to be determined at the first instance in terms of the Section 10(1) of the Act. The compensation which was claimed by the appellant in their representation dated 17.02.2022 is for additional compensation and not enhanced compensation.”
Accordingly, the present appeal was allowed.
Case Title: SUBRATA HAIT VERSUS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
Case Number: MAT NO. 1959 OF 2023
Judgment Date: 29/08/2025
Mr. Debasish Kundu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Indranil Nandi, Adv. Mr. Debaprasad Samanta, Adv. Mr. Sayak Konar, Adv. ……For the Appellant
Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Sharmistha Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Ranit Roy, Adv. Page 1 of 22 ……For the Respondent/I.O.C.L