WP(C) 1202/2000 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA 1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and M r. P.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, ONGC. 2. This writ petition was filed way back in 2000 by the petitioner who duri ng pendency of the writ petition died. Now his wife, Smt. Anima Dutta is the sub stituted petitioner as was allowed by this Court by order dated 06.04.05. 3. The material particulars relating to the case has already been mentioned in the order passed on 18.01.07 by which the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar was requested to furnish report relating to the rate of compensation and/or the rent of the land belonging to the petitioner which has been under use of the ONGC s ince 1968. The original petitioner, i.e. the husband of the petitioner, was a cu ltivator in respect of the land measuring 2 bighas, 1 kathas, 13 lechas under da g No. 196, patta No. 116 of Bhajanigaon, Mouza Silakuti of Sibsagar District. Th e land was occupied by the ONGC way back in 1968 for installation of four pipe l ines. It is the grievance of the petitioner that although the ONGC occupied the land by installing four pipe lines, but no compensation has been paid. 4. In paragraph-6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that beca use of installation of pipe lines by the ONGC there is difficulty in carrying ou t cultivation and so the family has suffered. In paragraph- 7 of the writ petit ion, the petitioner has also stated about his intention to construct a house ove r the said plot of land. However, because of occupation of the land by the ONGC, he could not do so. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of such occup ation of the land by the ONGC, he is not in a position to use the land either fo r cultivation or for construction of a residential house. 5. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the peti tioner was paid compensation of an amount of Rs. 1776/-. However, on scrutiny to the materials, it is found that the petitioner was paid compensation only for 1 lecha of land and that too, for the use of installation of T band in the pip e lines. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in March, 2006, i.e. after 6 years of filing of the writ petition. Unfortunately, the respondents have tak en the plea that the claim of the petitioner is belated. The respondents have no t denied that land has been under their occupation since 1968. However, their c ase is that since the petitioner has been paid the aforesaid compensation of Rs. 1776/-, he is not entitled to any further compensation. 6. Recording the aforesaid pleas of the parties, this Court as recorded in the order dated 18.01.07 is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to c ompensation for occupation of the land by the ONGC. It will be pertinent to ment ion here that as per the provision of Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquis ition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, the authority is required to publish a notification of acquisition and declaration of acquisition and right of user. Sections 3 and 6 of the Act provide for the same. 7. In the instant case, admittedly no such notification has been issued by the authority and yet the ONGC has been occupying the land since 1968. Such acti on on the part of the ONGC cannot be appreciated. Instead of showing good gestur e, they have rather opposed the claim of the petitioner even by taking the unsu stainable plea of limitation. This is unbecoming to the organization like ONGC. It gives an impression that the ONGC authority exercising its might and power can hoodwink the poor cultivator. 8. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 18.01.07 requesting the De puty Commissioner to make an assessment of the rate of compensation for use of t he land since 1968, the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar has furnished his report q uantifying the amount of compensation at Rs. 4,96,290/- at the rate of Rs. 1,50 ,000/- per bigha including the additional charge 30% and 12% on the principal am ount. The amount of compensation has been assessed on the basis of existing zona l valuation fixed by the District Authority. 9. The petitioner showing her good gesture has made it known that she is ag reeable to accept the aforesaid amount of compensation. However, the ONGC by fil ing an additional affidavit has questioned the very ascertainment of compensatio n by the Deputy Commissioner. According to them, the amount of compensation is i n the higher side. They have reiterated their stand in the additional affidavit. In paragraph-3 of the additional affidavit, it has been stated that the petitio ner is still the owner of the land in question although pipe lines are there. Ac cording to the ONGC, the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly assessed the amount of compensation taking it to be a case of land acquisition. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the materials on record. The ONGC in its affidavit has not taken any d efinite plea. It is not their case that they have made use of the land as per th e provision of the aforesaid Act. On being asked and requested on number of time s, Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel could not produce the notifications a s required to be issued under Sections 3 and 6 of the Act. Thus, here is a case in which the ONGC has been occupying the land of the petitioner without followi ng the provision of the Act, but yet they have denied their liability to pay co mpensation. Since the land is under the occupation of the ONGC by way of install ation of four pipelines, the petitioner is not in a position to utilize the land either for proper cultivation or for construction of a residential house. It i s rather unfortunate that an organization like ONGC has taken the plea that sinc e the petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs. 1776/-, it has no further liabil ity. In fact, they are guilty of violation of the aforesaid provisions of the Ac t. 11. In view of the above, I allow the writ petition with a direction to the ONGC to pay the amount of Rs. 4,96,290/- being the compensation for acquisition of the land under their occupation since 1968. Necessary follow up action shall be carried out by the ONGC authority as expeditiously as possible, but not late r than 31st January, 2008. The said amount of compensation shall be paid within the target date failing which same will carry an interest of 12% P.A. 12. The petitioner was forced to approach this Court for illegal action on t he part of the ONGC authority. During the pendency of the writ petition, the hus band of the petitioner died. This proceeding had to be initiated by the petition er due to apathy shown by the ONGC authority. The petitioner was a poor cultivat or and the ONGC authority instead of responding to the writ proceeding, has dela yed the matter by not filing counter affidavit for six years. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that it is a f it case for awarding cost. Accordingly while allowing the writ petition, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed on the ONGC authority payable to the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instruction, submits that the p etitioner is ready to relinquish her right over the plot of land subject to the condition that the amount of compensation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibs agar is paid to her by the ONGC authority within the target date. Alternatively it will be open for the parties to execute relinquishment deed/sale deed etc.