ORDER
P. S. Mishra, C. J.
1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court, has arisen in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner-appellant herein, Gas Authority of India Limited, has filed the petition questioning the order of the competent authority under the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 in respect of determination of compensation to the land owners.
2. The petitioner-appellant is a statutory authority. In the process of laying gas pipelines from Tatipaka to Kakinada, covering a distance of 103 K.Ms. during the year 1990-91, it is alleged, certain lands belonging to respondents 2 to 186 were involved. It appears, after declaration under Section 6 and the process of laying pipelines commenced, the competent authority under the Act issued notices to all the land owners calling upon them to file their claim petitions, either personally or through their advocates for compensation. According to the petitioner-appellant, the competent authority determined the compensation payable to each of the owners and owners were also paid compensation. It is stated, however, that the then competent authority, Ch. Venkateswara Rao, retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-11-1992. On 1-12-1992, one of the respondents, V.V. Satya-narayana Raju submitted a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the
appellant-Company and alleged that compensation fixed by the competent authority was inadequate and the procedure adopted by him in fixing the compensation was improper. He made yet another representation on 27-4-1993 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant-company which representation was forwarded to the competent authority under the Act. Successor incumbent Smt. K. Suneetha submitted a report to the Senior Manager of the appellant that delermination of compensation by her predecessor-in-office was in order and justified. Satyanarayana Raju submitted a fresh representation on 28-10-1993 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant. This time also the Chairman and Managing Director forwarded the representation to the competent authority. Smt. K. Suneetha, however, has since relinquished office and Sri G. Nagendra Rao, the new incumbent, submitted a report dated 28-12-1993 to the Senior Manager of the appellant stating that his predecessor, Mr. Venkateswara Rao had not . determined compensation and money paid to the owners was only ad hoc compensation for the damages caused to the crops. He also opined that the rates of compensation paid to the owners was very much on lower side and he tentatively determined the compensation at Rs. 4,608/- per tree. In the said communication, he also said that he was proceeding with the award enquiry for the purpose of determining proper compensation payable to the land owners. By further communication dated 22-4-1994, Sri G. Nagendra Rao pointed out that before proceeding to determine the compensation, it was necessary to have ‘dates of termination of operation’ so that he could proceed further for determination of the compensation under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. By another letter dated 27-5-1994, Sri G. Nagendra Rao, while informing the authority that the compensation had to be determined after conducting enquiry as required under-Section 10 of the Act, requested the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.67 crore as per the request contained in his letter dated 28-12-1993. This, however, was replied by the Senior Manager of the appellant and a
request was made to the competent authority to drop all further proceedings as compensation was already determined and the owners had received the compensation amount. Sri G. Nagendra Rao, had, however, relinquished office and the new incumbent Sri B. Srinivasulu had succeeded him. Sri Srini-vasulu replied to the comrnunication from the Senior Manager of the appellant dated 9-1-1995 that the action by his immediate predecessor-in-office was in order and legal and the request to drop all proceedings could not be acceded to. He reiterated the demand of deposit of the amount of Rs. 1.67 crore.
3. Appellant has moved this Court and questioned the validity of the fresh or further proceedings under Section 10 of the Act by the competent authority in cases in which Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao had already paid compensation and Smt. K. Suneetha, his successor competent authority, had found that compensation was duly paid to the land owners.
4. Counter affidavits have been filed and it is accepted that respondents 2 to 186 did receive some amount of compensation. It is alleged, however, that it was not a proper determination of the amount of compensation and it was only some sort of ad hoc payment to them. Reliance is placed mainly upon the report of Sri G. Nagendra Rao and reiteration of the same by Sri Srinivasulu and it is contended on their behalf that since no proper and valid enquiry has been held under Section 10 of the Act, determination as to quantum of compensation payable to them is necessary and steps taken in this behalf thus by the competent authority are legal and valid. Learned single Judge has, however, stated that the records maintained by the competent authority do not disclose happening or existence of any of the events as contemplated under Section 10(1) and the relevant Rule i.e. Rule 4(1). He has, however, said whether these events did or did not take place, cannot be a matter of guess or inference, and proceeded after recording: “I need not -dilate this aspect further because even according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the events (i) to (iii) and (v) as
enumerated by him in the judgment with reference to Section 10(1) and Rule 4(1) did not take place, though he contended, compensation was determined and compensation was- paid. Learned single Judge has, however, entered into the records, nothings in the files etc., and recorded in his judgment, “by no stretch of imagination, these two Notes available in the file, which speak of amount of compensation, be equated to an award or a proceeding for determination of compensation under Section 10(1) of the Act. Learned single Judge has commented, “these two Notes have no `head’ or ‘tail’. From the records it seems that Ch. Venkateswara Rao prepared these Notes and submitted them to petitioner-authority for its consideration and approval. A starting procedure indeed; a clear case of abdication of statutory power. The Competent Authority under the Act cannot act like a pawn in the hands of the petitioner-authority. Be that as it may, even, even in these Notes. there is no final determination. What Ch.Venkateswara Rao thought to be proper compensation tentatively is reflected in the Notes. Both the Notes speak clearly and unmistakebly that compensation has to be determined. The sentence, `a normal rate for removal also has to be considered as per the local rates of the area’ in the Note dated 29-1-1991 and the sentence, ‘the tree value and other compensation will be estimated in due course clearly established that Ch. Venkate-swara Rao did not finally determine compensation”. After considering certain arguments mainly directed to the validity of the enquiry for determination of she compensation by the then competent authority Ch. Venkateswara Rao, finally it is said in the impugned judgment. “It is not a case of reopening of any concluded proceedings. I have already held that the competent authority did not determine the compensation. If the competent authority had determined the compensation, then the argument would have been appreciated. The mere fact that the land owners received certain sums of money offered by the then competent authority towards compensation on ad hoe basis, that will not come in the way of the owners to command the competent authority to determine compensation under sub-section(1) of Section 10 of
the Act, Added to this, the stand now taken by the petitioner-authority in its counters failed to the claim applications filed by the land-holders clearly reflects that what was paid to the land owners was only an ad hoc amount towards compensation and not full compen-sation. That is why in each of the counters filed before the competent authority, it has asserted its entitlement to seek refund of the ‘ad hoc amount paid to the claimants’ “. He has accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
5. Before we proceed to deal with the contentions before us, we may recapitulate the provisions of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act; 1962. The Act, which applies to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, has defined “competent authority” to mean any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority under the Act. It has empowered under Section 3, the Central Government to declare its intention to ac-quire the right of user in any land whenever it appears to it that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum from one locality to another locality pipelines be laid by the Central Government or by any State Government or a Corporation and that for the purpose of laying pipelines, it is necessary to acquire the right of user ,in any land, under which the said pipelines may be laid. On issue of such notification, the Central Government or the State Government or the Corporation, which proposed to lay pipelines for transporting petroleum and its servants and workmen to enter upon and survey and take levels, of any Sand specified in the notification; to, dig or bore into the sub-soil; to set out the intended line of work; to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; where otherwise survey cannot be completed and levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to ,cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle; and to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether pipelines can be laid under the land. (See Section. 4). Section 5(1) provides for objections, if any, to the laying of the pipelines under the land by
any person aggrieved, within 21 days from the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3. It also contained provision for clearing all the objections and enquiry and order by the competent authority on objections, if any, Section 6 then provides as follows:
“6(1) Where no objections under sub-section (1) of Section 5 have been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objections under subsection (2) of that section, that authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and upon receipt of such report the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines should be acquired.
(2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the right of user in the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 but no declaration under this section has been published within a period of one year from the date of that notification, that notification shall cease to have effect on the expiration of that period.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Central Government may, on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to impose, direct by order in writing, that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government vest, either on the date of publication of the declaration or, on such other date as may be specified in the direction, in the State Government or the Corporation proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall, subject to the terms and conditions so imposed, vest in that State Government or corporation, as the case may be, free from all encumbrances.”
Provisions of the Act thereafter speak of the rights to lay pipelines or to do any other act necessary for the laying of pipelines under the land and/or entering upon the land by any
person authorised by the Central Government or such State Government or Corporation, as the case may be, and enjoins that n”6 pipelines shall be laid under (a) any land, which, immediately before the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, was used for residential purposes; (b) any land on which there stands any permanent structure, which was in existence immediately, before the said date; (c) any land which is appurtenant to a dwelling house; (d) any land at a depth which is less than one metre from the surface and that such land shall be used only for laying the pipelines and for maintaining, examining, repairing, altering or removing any such pipelines or for doing any other act necessary for any of the aforesaid purposes or for the utilisation of such pipelines. Any dispute in this regard is made referable to the competent authority, whose decision is made final. The relevant provisions, to which a reference is necessary, however are Sections 9 and 10, which provide as follows:
“9. (1) The owner or occupier of the land with respect to which a declaration has been made under sub-section (1) of Section 6, shall be entitled to use the land for the purpose for which such land was put to use immediately before the date of the notification under subsection (1) of Section 3:
Provided that, such owner or occupier shall not after the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6-
(i) construct any building or any other structure;
(ii) construct or excavate any tank, well,
reservoir or dam; or
(iii) plant any tree on that land.
(2) The owner or occupier of the land under which any pipeline has been laid shall not do any act or permit any act to be done which will or is likely to cause any damage in any manner whatsoever to the pipeline.
10.(1) Where in the exercise, of the powers conferred by Section 4, Section 7 or Section 8 by any person, any damage, loss or injury is sustained by any person interested in the land
under which the pipeline is proposed to be, or is being, or has been laid, the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay compensation to such person for such damages, loss or injury, the amount of which shall be determined by the competent authority in the first instance.
(2) If the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of compensation shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by that District Judge.
(3) The competent authority or the District Judge while determining the compensation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall have due regard to the damage or loss sustained by any person interested in the land by reason of-
(i) the removal of trees or standing crops, if any, on the land while exercising the powers under Section 4, Section 7 or Section 8;
(ii)the temporary severance of the land under which the pipeline has been laid from other lands belonging to, or in the occupation of, such person; or
(iii) any injury to any other property, whether movable or immovable, or the earnings of such persons caused in any other manner:
Provided that in determining the compensation, no account shall be taken of any structure or other improvement made in the land after the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3.
(4) Where the right of user of any land has vested in the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, shall in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1), be liable to pay to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in
any manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting, compensation calculated at ten per cent of the market value of that land on the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3.
(5) The market value of the land on the said date shall be determined by the competent authority and if the value so determined by that authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, it shall, on application by cither of the parties to the District Judge referred to in sub-section (2) be determined by that District Judge.
(6) The decision of the District Judge under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) shall be final.”
Section 9 of the act has received sub-section (3) by way of an amendment by Act No. 13 of 1977, which provides as follows:
“(3) Where the owner or occupier of the land with respect of which a declaration has been made under sub-section (1) of Section 6-
(a) constructs any building or any other structure, or
(b) constructs or excavates any well, lank, reservoir or dam, or
(c) plants any tree,
on the land, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situate may, on an application made to it by the competent authority and after holding such inquiry as it may deem fit, cause the building, structure, reservoir, dam or tree to be removed or the well or tank to he filled up, and the costs of such removal or filling up shall be recoverable from such owner or occupier in the same manner as if the order for the recovery of such costs were a decree made by that Court.”
Provisions thus have been made to pay compensation for any damage, loss or injury to such person, who is interested in the land, under which the pipeline is proposed to be or is being or has been laid and the power to decide with respect to compensation is given to the competent authority, who, as we have
already seen, is a person or authority authorised by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette to perform the functions of the authority competent under the Act. If amount of compensation determined by the authority is not acceptable to any party, he/she is given the right to make application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated and the District Judge is empowered to decide upon the same and his decision is final. It is thus seen that a wholesome scheme is provided under the Act for determination of compensation and a party aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority is given the right to make application to the District Judge and take the District Judge’s decision on it. When we advert to the facts of the case, we can see that the competent authority did order and some compensation is paid, which, it appears, was not accepted as satisfactory and final by one of the respondents herein. He had the remedy, if the compensation paid was inadequate, to make application to the District Judge. He however, did not do so. Instead, he represented to some one, whom, the law has not recognised to be competent for entertaining any application on the issue of’Compensation, i.e. the Chairman and Managing Director. Was it just a routine marking of an application by the Chairman and Managing Director to the competent authority? If it was so and he received from the then competent authority, Smt. K. Suneetha report on 10-5-1993, there was nothing further for him to serve. Nonetheless, the objector, who has found the Chairman and Managing Director convenient to approach, represented once more and got once again a reference to the competent authority. This time the successor incumbent Sri G. Nagender Rao, who has everything to say, except to tell Ihe applicant/representa-tionist that if he was aggrieved by the compensation paid to him, he had a remedy to approach the District Judge. It was indeed an act, if not totally, sufficiently unwarranted for Sri G. Nagender Rao, the competent authority, to comment upon the determination of compensation by his predecessor, nay his
predecessor s predecessor that he had not determined the compensation and what was paid was only ad hoc compensation for the damages caused to the crops and that the rate of compensation paid to the owners was very much on lower side and to proceed further to tentatively determine the compensation at Rs. 4,068/-per tree and to ask the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.67 crore before actually the stage of Section 11 of the Act reached, which provides, inter alia, that the amount of compensation determined under Section 10 would be deposited by the Central Government, the State Government, or the Corporation, as the case may be, with the competent authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed. One of the settled principles of law is that determina-tion/adjudication of compensation is taken as completed one when awardee or the person entitled to compensation is paid and he raises no protest. The only protest, which the facts aforementioned reveal is raised by one of the respondents by way of a representation to the Chairman and Managing Director, who, we have already noticed, is not competent to entertain any such representation, inadequacy or any illegality in determination of compensation could undoubtedly be questioned, but as we have already noticed, by an application before the District Judge and no one has cared to do it. We do not, however, know what really prompted for verification of the records of the competent authority by the learned single Judge. Courts invariably refrain from looking into the files of the Tribunals and authorities, except insofar as they pertain to the record of a particular case. Correspondence between the competent authority and officers in the appellant Corporation can no doubt some times be found relevant, but unless their authenticity is proved and their relevance is established, even in regular proceedings they are not admitted in evidence. We do not propose, however, to proceed any further in this regard, but if at all verification of the record became necessary, the Court, on the facts as above, would not ignore the report of Smt. K. Suneetha, the
competent authority and before accepting any materials for any contrary opinion, at-least decide upon whether all materials, upon which Smit. K. Suneetha had based her opinion, were placed before the Court or not.
6. What has indeed baffled us in the instant proceeding is the conduct of the respondents in not making any representation to the District Judge and the first respondent herein completely going against the report of Smt. K. Suneetha, who, at the relevant time, was the competent authority. More baffling, however, is the fact that the first respondent has chosen to call the compensation already paid as ad hoc compensation, a terminology, which is not referable to any of the provisions of the Act. Compensation under Sect ion 10 is determined once and not more than once, One who is paid compensation has to accept that. So far as the competent authority is concerned, he has completed his enquiry and if he has grievance as respects the adequacy of the compensation, he may make an application before the District Judge. Main reason, however, why the learned single Judge has found fault against the petitioner-appellant is reflected in the observations, which are as follows:
“Although the Act and the Rules do not provide for comprehensive detailed procedure governing determination of compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, if there is a determination of compensation by the competent authority as envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 10, the records should reflect and precede the happening of the following events as mandated by the provisions of Section 10(1) and Rule 4(1):
(i) the notification contemplated under Explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 is issued in the official gazette notifying the date of termination operation;
(ii) receipt of applications from the interested persons-landowners for compensation;
(iii) the competent authority made enquiry;
(iv) the competent authority has drawn up a proceeding determining compensation
payable to each of the land owners;
(v)the determination made by the competent authority is communicated to the parties.”
If we proceed to examine the above five, the last must be deemed to have been complied with as compensation is actually paid to respondents 2 to 186. and (i) above cannot, obviously, be done unless the entire process of determination of claims of all the persons interested in the land is completed. It cannot be separately issued for each person interested. (ii) above cannot be denied by any of the respondents as unless their application was processed, even the socalled ad hoc com-pensation could not have been paid to them. Whether for the purpose of final payment or for the purpose of socalled ad hoc payment, one has to concede there was some sort of enquiry. All the above which have weighed with the learned single Judge are mainly based because any regular proceeding drawn up by the competent authority is not produced before the Court and the Court is left to guess-whether there was any enquiry or not, whether any applications duly received from the interested persons-land owners for compensation or not whether there was any determination or not and if there was any determination, whether it was for payment of ad hoc compensation or for payment of compensation for all the loss or injury to the interested person-land owner.
7. It is well settled and learned single Judge has also accepted it as a sound principle of law that a statutory authority or Tribunal cannot review or reopen any order made by it. Power to review is always granted to such authorities by express provision of law. They do not have the inherent power to review their acts or orders as the Courts possess. No statute has been brought to our notice, under which the competent authority under the Act, is empowered to review or reopen his own act or order. If successors-in-office start finding fault with the acts of the predecessors-in– office and start reopening all that the predecessors have done, it will be impossible to limit recall of order of one successor of the order by his predecessor. Sri Srinivasulu, who
is the incumbent competent authority has chosen to review the order of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao. If he can do so, his successor can also do the same to his orders. The Act has taken care to provide for a protes to amount of compensation by the competent authority by way of an application to the District Judge and has made the order of the District Judge final. The order passed by Sri Srinivasulu, the incumbent competent authority is indeed in the nature of an order of review of the order of Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao. Law does not empower any such review. In sum, it is difficult to accept the case of respondents 2 to 186 that they have been paid ad hoc compensation only. Even if their case that they have been paid only the ad hoc compensation is accepted, they had the remedy of making an application to the District Judge and not to the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant company. The first respondent has acted without jurisdiction in entering into the proceeding of his predecessors-in-office and finding fault with the enquiry conducted by them. Respondents have thus acted in a manner that does not have the sanction or approval of law. The impugned judgment for the said reason is tit to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The writ appeal is allowed.
8. The proceeding in Ref. SDC/GAIL/ 235/93 dated 28-12-1993 and the consequential letter Roc. No.235/93(GAlL) dated 24-1-l995 of the first respondent, are quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, respondents 2 to 186 shall be liable to pay costs of the entire proceedings herein.
10. Hearing fee Rs. 5,000/-.
11. Petition allowed.