WP(C) 1680/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) (Amitava Roy, J) The petitioner company as the owner of Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate ( hereaft er referred to as the ’Tea Estate’) is before this Court assailing the vires of Rules 189 and 190 framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation,1886 (for s hort, hereafter referred to as the ’Regulation’) as well as various orders pass ed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia granting the right of entry to the Resp ondent Oil India Ltd.( also hereafter referred to as ’OIL’) into its lands and s anctioning only the compensation for damage caused to the surface thereof. The order dated 26.7.2001 under challenge to the above effect however, recorded th at the proceeding for permanent acquisition of land had been initiated and that on completion thereof necessary compensation under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Act’) would be released to the patt adars. 2. We have heard Mr PK Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms T.Goswami and Mr VK Bhatra, Advocates as well as Mr PS Deka, learned Stat e Counsel for the official respondents. Mr PC Deka, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr SK Medhi, Advocate appeared for the Respondent OIL. 3. The writ petitions in the series are inter-related as different plots o f land of the Tea Estate belonging to the writ petitioner are involved. The gri evance, however, is identical. To be specific and to avoid any confusion, the pa rticulars of the plots are enumerated hereinbelow :- WP( C) No.1680/2002 8 B-2K-5L under Dag Nos 100,101,103, 104,106,109 and 110, village- Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate, NLR Grant No.37/73 under Patta No.37 of Tinsukia Mouza. WP( C) No.1681/2002 25 B-0K-5L under Dag Nos 132,1180,181and 182, village- Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate, NLR Grant No.37/73 under Patta No.37 of Tinsukia Mouza. WP( C) No.1721/2002 16 B-2K-15L under Dag No.95, village- Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate, under Patta No.37 of Tinsukia Mouza. WP( C) No.1722/2002 6B-4K-18L under Dag Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7,8, 9, 10, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33 ,34, 35, 36 and 43 village- Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate, in NL Grant No.37/73 under Patta No.3 o f Tinsukia Mouza. According to the petitioner, on various dates in the year 2000, the Respondent O IL having applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for its right of entry i nto the aforementioned plots under Rule 190 of the Rules framed under the Regula tion, notices were issued to the petitioner, whereafter orders were passed by th e aforementioned State authority granting the request made. The tenure of the du ration of such right of entry was extended from time to time. According to the p etitioner, on the basis of the above permission, the Respondent OIL took possess ion of the plots of land in the year 2000 itself and is in occupation thereof si nce then till date and pursuing its drilling activities for the purpose of expl oration of oil. On the petitioner’s claim for adequate compensation for depriv ation of its right of occupancy and user of the land, the Collector, Tinsukia by order dated 26.7.2001 granted only the compensation for damage caused to the s urface thereof with the observation referred to hereinabove vis-à-vis the compen sation payable under the Act on the culmination of the acquisition proceeding s aid to have been drawn up thereunder. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come t o this Court with a challenge to the vires of the abovementioned legal provision s as well as for being aggrieved by the grant of right of entry to the Respond ent OIL and denial of compensation as sought for. 4. The Respondent OIL in its counter has not denied its entry on the petiti oner’s land, but has pleaded that in terms of the award dated 11.1.2001 of the D eputy Commissioner and Collector, Tinsukia adequate compensation had been sancti oned to the petitioner and that when the sums worked out had been offered to it, the latter had refused to accept the same. It however, has clarified that by acquiring the right of entry ( for short, ’ROE’), it cannot avoid any liability for payment of just compensation. The challenge to the vires of Rules 180/190 of the Rules under the Regulation has been dismissed as untenable. Impugnment of the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia permitting right of entry has also been repudiated. 5. The additional affidavit of the petitioner need not be dilated upon as t he contents thereof are in elaboration of the facts stated in the writ petition . 6. In course of the hearing of the instant proceeding, this Court on being apprised by the learned counsel for the parties about the initiation of an ex ercise for amicable settlement of the dispute, vide its order dated 28.9.2010 re quired the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to participate in the ongoing discussio n. The parties thereafter in fact, assembled again on 12.10.2010 in the office chamber of the Additional Deputy Commissioner(PSU), Tinsukia in terms of the afo rementioned order of this Court and the minutes of the said meeting as placed on record reveal the petitioner company’s insistence for acquisition of the land u nder the Act to which the authorized representatives of the Respondent OIL had c onsented. The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia in view of the above discussion, as the minutes would reveal, also agreed to issue the order of land and zirat valu ation afresh on the current market rate and also to make necessary arrangement for acquisition of the land occupied by the Respondent OIL. It was agreed that t he Respondent OIL would submit a fresh proposal for acquisition of land and t he Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would initiate the process in connection there with. The learned counsel for the parties on 10.11.2010 apprised this court int er alia that the aforementioned minutes are acceptable to their clients who i n fact are bound thereby. It was further disclosed that in terms of the said fin dings, the Respondent OIL has already submitted proposal with the Deputy Commi ssioner, Tinsukia for initiating the process for acquisition of the land involve d under the Act that and if necessary, a fresh proposal to the said effect would be submitted within a week. This Court parted with the proceeding at that stag e with the expectation that the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would take a deci sion at the earliest. 7. The learned counsel for the parties today while reiterating the dev elopments as above have urged that in order to put a quietus , the Deputy Commis sioner, Tinsukia ought to be directed to take a final decision in the matter of acquisition of land and a timeframe may be fixed so as to ensure that the proces s is unfailingly completed by then. It is submitted at the Bar that the challen ge to the vires of Rules 189/190 of the Rules under the Regulation has lost it s significance in view of a decision on the issue by a Division Bench of this Court. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of their pleaded stands, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justi ce if these petitions are closed with the following directions- i) The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would take immediate steps (if not alr eady taken) to initiate a process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for com pensation thereunder vis-à-vis the land(s) of the petitioner company involved in the instant proceeding and in occupation of the Respondent OIL. ii) If meanwhile, the Respondent OIL has not yet submitted its proposal to t he above effect, it would do so within two(2) weeks herefrom with the Deputy Com missioner, Tinsukia, whereafter the said authority would take steps in terms of Clause(1) as above. iii) The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would act strictly under the provision s of the Assam Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, in utmost expedition in view of the time lag in between. The initiation would be done within three(3) weeks herefrom and it would be the responsibility of the said authority to obtain the fresh proposal from the Respondent OIL, if in the meantime, though necessary, t he same has not been submitted. iv) The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would ensure that the process of acqu isition of the land is speeded up avoiding undue delay therein. The parties, n eedless to say, would cooperate with the exercise to be so undertaken. v) The acquisition proceeding should be completed within a period of six(6) months herefrom. 9. In course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner ha s urged that the acquisition of the land if done, the compensation awardable wo uld relate to the period on and from which the same is initiated by a notificati on under Section 4 of the Act and thus its claim with regard thereto for the pe riod prior to such proceeding would remain unattended. In the above view of th e matter, we consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner company to lay it s claim vis a vis the land for the period on and from which its possession had been taken over by the Respondent OIL till the initiation of the land acquisitio n proceeding under the Act. If such a claim is made by the petitioner company, t he Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would take a decision thereon after hearing bot h the parties and strictly in accordance with law applicable thereto. This issue would be independent of the one for the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and would be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia parallel y and completed within a period of three(3) months from the claim made by the pe titioner. It is clarified that whatever amount meanwhile has been paid by the Respondent O IL in favour of the petitioner company would be set off against its claim admis sible in law. The abovementioned State authority has been entrusted with the r esponsibility which this Court has considered it appropriate in the facts and c ircumstances of the case more particularly to effect a resolution of the lingeri ng dispute between the parties. It is expected that it would act in the right sp irit and complete the process within the timeframe fixed therefor. 10. The petitions stand disposed in the above terms. No costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr PS Deka, learned State counsel so as to enable him to forward the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia for doing th e needful in time.