top of page

Ambalal Babulal Patel Vs. Group General Manager, ONGC

Ambalal Babulal Patel Etc. Etc. ………..Appellant


The Group General Manager, ONGC …….Respondent

Facts/Background of the case:

1. The subject properties in dispute are located in the villages of Pansar, Dhamasana, and Isand, Taluka Kalol Distt. Gandhinagar and were acquired by the ONGC under the terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for public use. The notice under Sec 4 of the Act was published, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer gave compensation under Sec 11 of the Act after following the legal procedure.

2. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved the compensation was increased by the reference court, along with extra compensation for the claimants at the rate of Rs. 254/- per sq mtr. and all other legal advantages.

3. After feeling unhappy by the order of the court the ONGC presented an appeal before the High Court. The High Court overturned the lower court's decision, ruling that the claimants are entitled to further compensation of Rs. 203/- per square metre for lands acquired in village Pansar, Taluka Kalol, Distt. Gandhinagar, as well as all other legal advantages.

4. The appellants are the claimants, and they have contacted the Supreme Court by bringing their present appeals because they are unhappy with the amount of compensation given by the Division Bench of the High Court under the challenged judgement.


i. Whether the additional amount granted by the Reference Court is accurate or not?

ii. Whether the interference made by the High Court regarding the compensation is right or not?


1. After hearing learned advisors for the parties, we believe that the Reference Court, in exercising its power under Sec 18 of the Act, awarded extra compensation to the claimants over and above the remuneration paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ONGC, Ahmedabad, and that the High Court's interference was unjustified.

2. As a result, the Reference Court's supplementary compensation awards in the individual rulings are reinstated. The High Court's contested ruling is consequently changed to a limited degree.


  • J. Ajay Rastogi

  • J. Abhay S. Oka

This article is written by Tanishq Chandel of Amity Law School.

Recent Posts

See All


1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J) PETITIONER: Parmanand Katara, Human Rights Activist RESPONDENT: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Indian Medical Council, India


Post: Blog2 Post
Anchor 1
bottom of page