Disposed¶23

Chittaranjan Bhunia v. Indian Oil Corportion Limited and Ors.

Calcutta HC15 Jul 2025WPA/24338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, WPA 24338 of 2022, Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. — writ for compensation dismissed as to entertainment on ground of alternative remedy; IOCL pipeline land acquisition; compensation paid to fraudulent claimant; crop damage; Section 10 Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962; remedy before District Judge; writ disposed with liberty to approach appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

No monetary or compensatory relief granted; petitioner given liberty to move the appropriate forum (the learned District Judge, per Section 10 of the 1962 Act) in accordance with law. ¶23

Chittaranjan Bhunia Vs Indian Oil Corportion Limited and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1507 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

TUESDAY

¶4

WPA 24338 OF 2022

¶5

Court : CB-07 Item : DL-03 Bench : SINGLE Matter : WPA Status : DO ID : 266057 AR : NANDY

¶6

CHITTARANJAN BHUNIA

¶7

VS.

¶8

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

¶9

MR. D.N. CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA SAHA, ADVOCATE

¶10

……for the Petitioner

¶11

MS. SHARMISTHA GHOSH, ADVOCATE MR. VICTOR CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE MR. AMIT GHOSH, ADVOCATE

¶12

……for the IOCL

¶13

Affidavit of Service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the concerned respondent to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner.

¶15

Briefly stated, the facts leading to the institution of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is the owner of a land measuring 14 decimals. The Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as IOCL), for laying a pipeline, acquired 6.5 decimals of the petitioner’s land and awarded compensation.

¶16

The petitioner’s grievance is that the compensation was wrongfully paid to another individual who fraudulently misrepresented himself as the son of the petitioner’s younger brother. The petitioner further contends that, during the process of laying a pipeline, personnel engaged by IOCL illegally and forcibly damaged the standing crops, and the remaining land has been completely destroyed, rendering it unfit for cultivation. A representation

¶17

P a g e | 2

¶18

highlighting these issues was submitted by the petitioner to the competent authority. However, despite receipt of the representation, no effective steps have been taken. This prolonged inaction has compelled the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶19

The petitioner prays for a direction to be issued to the concerned respondent to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for the loss and injury suffered due to the damage caused to the standing crops and the remaining portion of the land.

¶20

Mr. Victor Chatterjee, learned Advocate representing IOCL, drew my attention to the provisions of Section 10 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, and submits that, as per the provisions of Section 10 of that Act, the petitioner’s remedy lies before the learned District Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the land in question. He submits that the petitioner may initiate appropriate proceedings to ventilate his grievance before the concerned District Judge.

¶21

Since the statute provides an alternative efficacious remedy, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition.

¶22

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer a proper application before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶23

With these observations and order, WPA 24338 of 2022 is disposed of .

¶24

(PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.)

¶25

P a g e | 3

Chittaranjan Bhunia v. Indian Oil Corportion Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chittaranjan Bhunia v. Indian Oil Corportion Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhen Chandra Chowdhury and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nadanghat Service Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Bharati Patra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rani Majhi Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Kaushik Bhattacharya Vs Public Service Commission and Others