रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/200305 REGD. No. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 49] नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 9—दिसम्बर 15, 2018, शनिवार/अग्रहायण 18—अग्रहायण 24, 1940
No. 49] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 9—DECEMBER 15, 2018, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 18— AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
विदेश मंत्रालय
(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 12 नवम्बर, 2018
का.आ. 1749.—राजनयिक और कोंसुलीय अधिकारी (शपथ एवं फीस) के अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 41) की धारा 2 के खंड(क) के अनुसरण में वैधानिक आदेश ।
एतदद्वारा, के न्र्द सरकार भारत के उच्चायोग, ब्रूनेई दारुस्सलाम में र्शी ल(cid:7023)मी कांत चोपड़ा, सहायक अनुभाग अधिकारी को दिनांक 12 नवम्बर, 2018 से सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारियों के तौर पर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के निर्वहन के लिए प्राधिकृ त करती है ।
[सं. टी. 4330/1/2017]
प्रकाश चन्द, निदेशक (कोंसुलर)
7000 GI/2018
(6595)6596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 12th November, 2018
S.O. 1749.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Laxmi Kant Chopra, Assistant Section Officer, as Assistant Consular Officer in High Commission of India, Brunei Darussalam to perform the Consular services with effect from 12 November, 2018.
[No. T. 4330/01/2017]
PRAKASH CHAND, Director (Consular)
कामिक, लोक शिकायत और पेंशन मंत्रालय
(कामिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2018
का.आ. 1750.— के न्र्दीय सरकार, एत(cid:7375)ारा दंड प्रर्किया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए लातूर (महाराष्ट्र) स्थित सत्र न्यायालयों में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई) द्वारा संस्थापित लातूर सत्र मामला सं. 78/2014/या आर सी 04 (एस)/2016)सीबीआई (एस सी-1/नई दिल्ली (कल्पना गिरी हत्याकांड) से उत्पन्न होने वाले अन्य मामलों में अभियोजन का संचालन तथा उससे संब(cid:7373) और उसी संव्यवहार
में, प्रसांगिक अन्य मामलों में अपील/पुनरीक्षण का संचालन करने के लिए र्शी शिवाजी प्रह्लादराव चवन, अधिवक्ता को
उनकी नियुक्ति की तारीख से तीन वष(cid:7300) के लिए या मामले के निस्तारण तक, जो भी पहले हो, विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप
में नियुक्त करती है।
[फा. सं. 225/14/2018-एवीडी-II]
एस.पी.आर. त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018
S.O. 1750.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shivaji Prahladrao Chavan, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution in Latur Sessions Case No. 78/2014 or other matters arising out of RC 04(S)/2016/CBI/SC-1/New Delhi (Kalpana Giri murder case) instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Session Courts at Latur (Maharashtra) and appeals or revisions or other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto for a period of three years from the date of appointment or disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 225/14/2018-AVD-II]
S.P.R. TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6597पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1751.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य में पारादीप (उड़ीसा) से दुर्गापुर (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल) तक वाया हल्दिया एलपीजी परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड के र्दारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची में वणित है और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) र्दारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
कोई (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियॉ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में र्शी वि(cid:7393)नाथ समाझदार, डब्ल्यू. बी. सी. एस. (प्रशासनिक) सेवानिवृत्त सक्षम प्राधिकारी, पारादीप - हल्दिया - दुर्गापुर एलपीजी पाइपलाइन एवम् पारादीप - हल्दिया – बरौनी पाइपलाइन ऑगमेंटेशन योजना, डाकघर दुईल्या, आन्दुल-मौरी, मौरीर्गाम हावड़ा-711 302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा ।
अनुसूची
| जिला : हूगली राज्य: पश्चिम बंगाल | |||||
| प ुलिस ःटेशन | मौजा का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्ष ेऽफल | ||
| ह ेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
मगरा डिंगलहाट - 44 142 00 21 60
168 00 02 10
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)17/2018-ओआर-I/ई-26864]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018
S.O. 1751.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Paradip (Odisha) to Durgapur (West Bengal) Via Haldia a pipeline should be laid in State of West Bengal by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Biswanath Samajder, W.B.C.S6598 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (Exe.) Retd.Competent Authority Paradip – Haldia –Durgapur LPG Pipeline & Augmentation of Paradip – Haldia – Barauni Pipeline Project, P.O,Duillya, Andul - Mouri, Mourigram,Howrah, 711-302 (West Bengal).
SCHEDULE
| District : Hooghly State : West Bengal | |||||
| Police Station | Name of the Mouza | Khasra No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square meter | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
168 00 02 10
[F. No. R-11025(11)17/2018/OR-I/E-26864]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1752.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंर्ध प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के र्कियान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से ऊपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची में वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में र्शी के . ए. एस जेन्निसन, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंर्ध प्रदेश), इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, प्लॉट संख्या 33, कनका दुर्गा ऑफिसर्स कॉलोनी, गुरुनानक नगर मेन रोड विजयवाड़ा-520008, आंर्ध प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
| जिला: वेस्ट गोदावरी राज्य: आन्र्धप्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
तल्लापुडी तुपाकु लागुडेम 145 00 46 39
तल्लापुडी अन्नादेवरपेटा 272/2 00 06 51
270 00 07 84
358 00 41 29
गोपालपुरम गोपालपुरम 156/1 00 32 70
147 00 52 93
256/1 00 03 60 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6599
गोपालपुरम वेल्लाचितलागुडेम 550/1 00 24 78
537 00 30 33
538 00 28 26
कोय्यालागुडेम कं कार्दिपुरम 88 00 05 78
कामावरपुकोटा रामन्नापालेम 20/9 00 06 21
16/1 00 13 68
18/7 00 05 44
18/6 00 04 89
18/5 00 04 81
19/4A 00 07 57
कामावरपुकोटा कामावरपुकोटा 657/2 00 04 45
661/3 00 00 78
594/3 00 07 33
583/1 00 31 72
49/2 00 27 48
48 00 03 02
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओ.आर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018
S.O. 1752.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. K.A.S Jennyson, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh), Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, Plot No. 33, Kanaka Durga officer's Colony , Gurunank Nagar Main Road , Vijayawada - 520008 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| District : West Godavari | State : Andhra Pradesh | ||||
| Name of Mandal | Name of Village | Survey No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
(3) (4) (5) (6) Tallapudi Tupakulagudem 145 00 46 39 Tallapudi Annadevarapeta 272/2 00 06 51 270 00 07 84 358 00 41 29 Gopalapuram Gopalapuram 156/1 00 32 70 147 00 52 93 127/2 00 17 636600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Gopalapuram Gopalapuram 125 00 43 91
256/1 00 03 60
256/2A 00 10 80
Gopalapuram Vellachintalagudem 550/1 00 24 78
537 00 30 33
538 00 28 26
Koyyalagudem Kankadripuram 88 00 05 78
Kamavarapukota Ramannapalem 20/9 00 06 21
16/1 00 13 68
18/7 00 05 44
18/6 00 04 89
18/5 00 04 81
19/4A 00 07 57
Kamavarapukota Kamavarapukota 657/2 00 04 45
661/3 00 00 78
594/3 00 07 33
583/1 00 31 72
49/2 00 27 48
48 00 03 02
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017-OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1753.—के न्र्दीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके प(cid:7391)ात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना, जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 36, दिनांक 15.09.2018 कर्मांक संख्या 1379 दिनांक 10.09.2018 भाग II, खण्ड 3, उप-खण्ड (ii) में किया गया है। इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिदिष्ट हिमाचल राज्य की तहसील हरोली, जिला उना की भूमि में, पंजाब राज्य में गाँव : झुगियां, जिला शहीद भगत सिह नगर से हिमाचल प्रदेश के गाँव : पेखुबेला, जिला उना तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑइल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पीएजेपीएल – उना ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना के सम्बंध में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी।
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचनाओं की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 07.10.2018 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी।
और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने के न्र्दीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के प(cid:7391)ात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनि(cid:7391)य किया है।
अत: अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिदिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अजित किया जाए।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निद(cid:7287)श देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्र्दीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा।
पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन किसी भी क्षतिपूति के लिए इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामलें पर के न्र्दीय सरकार के विरु(cid:7373) कोई वाद - दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नह(cid:7277) हो सके गी।
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6601अनुसूची
जिला : उना राज्य :हिमाचल प्रदेश
| र्क. सं. | तहसील का नाम | गाँव का नाम | हदबस्त नं | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
1 हरोली के लुवा 2920 00 02 02
2946 00 03 60
2953/2 00 03 07
2 हरोली बाथू 475 1821 00 06 40
1822 00 02 65
1990 00 01 45
3 हरोली टाहलीवाल उपरला 472 407/1 00 00 20
4 हरोली नंगल खुर्द 474 2937 00 05 57
2938 00 00 40
2942 00 12 78
5 हरोली मानुवाल 471 2548 00 10 26
2564 00 04 50
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)248/2017-ओआर-I/ई-18228]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018
S.O. 1753.—Whereas, Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette No. 36, dated 15.09.2018, S.O. No. 1379, dated 10.09.2018 Part-II, section 3, sub- section (ii) issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Tehsil Haroli of District Una in Himachal Pradesh State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum product from village Jhungian, District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar in the State of Punjab to village Pekhubela, District Una in the State of Himachal Pradesh by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "PAJPL - Una Branch Pipeline project".
And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 07.10.2018.
And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline.
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central6602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
India Oil Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of section 10 of the P & MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to pipeline.
SCHEDULE
District : Una State : Himachal Pradesh
| Sr. No. | Name of Tehsil | Name of Village | Hadbast No. | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. mtr. | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
2946 00 03 60 2953/2 00 03 07 2 Haroli Bathu 475 1821 00 06 40 1822 00 02 65 1990 00 01 45
472 407/1 00 00 20 3 Haroli
Tahliwal Upparla
4 Haroli Nangal Khurd 474 2937 00 05 57 2938 00 00 40 2942 00 12 78 5 Haroli Manuwal 471 2548 00 10 26 2564 00 04 50
[F. No. R-11025(11)248/2017-OR-I/E-18228]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1754.—के न्र्दीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम,1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके प(cid:7391)ात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. 2024 तारीख 28.08.2017 जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 35, भाग-II, खण्ड 3, उप-खण्ड (ii) तारीख 02.09.2017 में किया गया है। इस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिदिष्ट ओड़िशा राज्य के तहसील : शेरगढ़, जिला : गंजाम की भूमि में, ओड़िशा राज्य में पारादीप से तेलंगाना राज्य में हैदराबाद तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा र्कियान्वित किए जा रहे "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना" के संबंध में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिये अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थ(cid:7277)। और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी नें के न्र्दीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
और के न्र्दीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के प(cid:7391)ात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिष्चय किया है;
अत :अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद् द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में विनिदिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अजित किया जाए; और के न्र्दीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निद(cid:7287)श देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्र्दीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए सभी बिल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा।
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6603| अनुसूची | ||||
| तहसील- शेरगढ़ | जिला - गंजाम | राज्य -ओड़िशा | ||
| गाँव का नाम | प्लॉट नं. | क्ष ेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
कित्तिपुर 1153 00 05 76
1231 00 01 13
1245 00 05 39
1257 00 02 07
1256 00 03 04
1255 00 00 10
1278 00 06 35
1277 00 05 58
1270 00 01 88
1509 00 11 60
1507 00 05 38
1524 00 05 31
1526 00 03 66
1572/1609 00 03 90
1572 00 04 60
1571 00 03 60
1570 00 04 81
1569 00 08 64
1583 00 06 82
1582 00 00 10
1592 00 00 66
1591 00 05 70
1593/1694 00 01 83
1601 00 05 72
1589 00 03 47
1602 00 08 98
1603 00 00 94
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)236/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13717]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव6604 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018
S.O. 1754.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 35 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 02.09.2017 vide S.O. Number :2024 dated 28.08.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962),(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intension to acquire the right of user in the land situted in Tehsil-Sheragada, District-Ganjam in Odisha State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Hyderabad in the State of Telengana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Central Government;
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
| SCHEDULE | ||||
| Tehsil: SHERAGADA | District : GANJAM | State : ODISHA | ||
| Name of the Village | Plot No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| KIRTIPUR | 1153 | 00 | 05 | 76 |
| 1231 | 00 | 01 | 13 | |
| 1245 | 00 | 05 | 39 | |
| 1257 | 00 | 02 | 07 | |
| 1256 | 00 | 03 | 04 | |
| 1255 | 00 | 00 | 10 | |
| 1278 | 00 | 06 | 35 | |
| 1277 | 00 | 05 | 58 | |
| 1270 | 00 | 01 | 88 | |
| 1509 | 00 | 11 | 60 | |
| 1507 | 00 | 05 | 38 | |
| 1524 | 00 | 05 | 31 | |
| 1526 | 00 | 03 | 66 | |
| 1572/1609 | 00 | 03 | 90 | |
| 1572 | 00 | 04 | 60 | |
| 1571 | 00 | 03 | 60 | |
| 1570 | 00 | 04 | 81 | |
| 1569 | 00 | 08 | 64 | |
| 1583 | 00 | 06 | 82 | |
| KIRTIPUR | 1582 | 00 | 00 | 10 |
| 1592 | 00 | 00 | 66 | |
| 1591 | 00 | 05 | 70 | |
| 1593/1694 | 00 | 01 | 83 | |
| 1601 | 00 | 05 | 72 | |
| 1589 | 00 | 03 | 47 | |
| 1602 | 00 | 08 | 98 | |
| 1603 | 00 | 00 | 94 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)236/2017-OR-I/E-13717]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1755.—के न्र्दीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके प(cid:7391)ात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1071(E),1073(E) और 1074(E) तारीख 03.04.2017 जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 948, भाग II, खण्ड 3, उप खण्ड (ii) तारीख अप्रैल 06, 2017, का.आ. 2028 तारीख जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 35 , भाग II, खण्ड 3, उप खण्ड (ii) तारीख अगस्त 27 – सितंबर 02, 2017 और का.आ. 371 तारीख 16.12.2017 जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 9, भाग II, खण्ड 3, उप खण्ड (ii) तारीख फरवरी 25 - मार्च 03, 2018 में किया गया है। इस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिदिष्ट आंर्धप्रदेश राज्य के पोलावरम, तल्लापुडी, गोपालपुरम, देवारापल्ली, कोय्यालागुडेम, द्वारका- तिरुमला, कामावरपुकोटा, टी. नरसापुरम और चितलापूडी मंडल वेस्टगोदावरी जिला की भूमि में, ओडीशा राज्य में पारादीप से तेलंगाना राज्य में हैदराबाद तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7287)रेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा र्कियान्वित किए जा रहे "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना"के संबंध में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी:
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थ(cid:7277)। और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने के न्र्दीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के प(cid:7391)ात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है:
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद् द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में विनिदिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अजित किया जाए:
और के न्र्दीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निद(cid:7287)श देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्र्दीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए सभी बिल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7287)रेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा।
अनुसूची
| जिला: वेस्टगोदावरी राज्य: आन्र्धप्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
पोलावरम गुटाला 828 00 38 15 तल्लापुडी तुपाकु लागुडेम 172/1B 00 09 06 6606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] तल्लापुडी तुपाकु लागुडेम 188 00 02 21
173/1 00 02 12 तल्लापुडी अन्नादेवरपेटा 179/3 00 07 90
272/1 00 00 05
263/4A 00 05 25
267/2 00 19 74
267/1 00 24 04
332 00 24 78
360 00 14 74 गोपालपुरम वेल्लाचितलागुडेम 590-2D 00 05 61 गोपालपुरम गोपालपुरम 161 00 16 78
256/3A 00 10 80 गोपालपुरम कोमटिकु ं टा 61/1C 00 68 33 गोपालपुरम वडलागुन्टा 12 00 61 17 देवारापल्ली यदावोलु 118-6C 00 04 99
118-2B 00 00 12
255/1D 00 02 03 कोय्यालागुडेम कं कार्दिपुरम 96 00 42 79
कोय्यालागुडेम राजवाराम 483/2 00 39 33
214 00 53 65
207 01 65 32
515 00 20 93
द्वारकातिरुमला आई. एस. राघवापुरम 476/2 00 09 08
474/4 00 02 82
458/3 00 02 84 कामावरपुकोटा यडावल्लि 184/1 00 21 80
185/5 00 07 80 कामावरपुकोटा रामन्नापालेम 20/19 00 06 21
20/8 00 06 76
20/4 00 08 93
20/3 00 01 30 कामावरपुकोटा कामावरपुकोटा 653/5 00 03 50
653/4 00 05 82
653/3 00 08 02 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6607
कामावरपुकोटा कामावरपुकोटा 53/2 00 08 98
53/1 00 07 41
टी. नरसापुरम कृ ष्णारावुपालेम 10/1A 00 18 96
चितलापूडी वेंकमपालेम 75/8A 00 12 08
.
चितलापूडी प्रगडावरम 670 00 14 76
575/2B 00 00 06
225/2 00 17 83
224/1 00 06 36
226 00 17 04
227 00 36 23
217/2A 00 04 22
217/1 00 13 56
210/6 00 16 46
159 00 25 91
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018
S.O. 1755.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India No. 948 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii)dated April 06, 2017 Under S.O. No.1071(E), 1073(E)& S.O. No. 1074(E) dated 03.04.2017, No. 35 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii)dated Aug 27-Sept 02, 2017 Under S.O. No. 2028 dated 28.08.2017 and No. 9 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated February 25- March 03, 2018 vide S.O. Number 371 dated 16.12.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Mandal Polavaram, Tallapudi, Gopalapuram, Devarapalli, Koyyalagudem, Dwaraka Tirumala, Chintalapudi, T Narsapuram and Kamavarapukota District West Godavari of Andhra Pradesh State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Hyderabad in the State of Telangana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Hyderabad Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
6608 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SCHEDULE
| District: West Godavari State: Andhra Pradesh | |||||
| Name of Mandal | Name of Village | Survey No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Square Metre | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
Tallapudi Tupakulagudem 172/1B 00 09 06
172/2 00 27 72
188 00 02 21
173/1 00 02 12
Tallapudi Annadevarapeta 179/3 00 07 90
272/1 00 00 05
263/4A 00 05 25
267/2 00 19 74
267/1 00 24 04
332 00 24 78
360 00 14 74
Gopalapuram Vellachintalagudem 590-2D 00 05 61
Gopalapuram Gopalapuram 161 00 16 78
256/3A 00 10 80
Gopalapuram Komatikunta 61/1C 00 68 33
Gopalapuram Vadlagunta 12 00 61 17
Devarapalli Yadavolu 118-6C 00 04 99
118-2B 00 00 12
255/1D 00 02 03
Koyyalagudem Kankadripuram 96 00 42 79
Koyyalagudem Rajavaram 483/2 00 39 33
214 00 53 65
207 01 65 32
515 00 20 93
Dwaraka Tirumala I.S Raghavapuram 476/2 00 09 08
474/4 00 02 82
458/3 00 02 84
Kamavarapukota Yadavalli 184/1 00 21 80
185/5 00 07 80
Kamavarapukota Ramannapalem 20/19 00 06 21
20/8 00 06 76
20/4 00 08 93
20/3 00 01 30
Kamavarapukota Kamavarapukota 653/5 00 03 50
653/4 00 05 82
653/3 00 08 02
653/2 00 04 11
575/1 00 02 23
574/3 00 10 76
574/4 00 01 65
53/2 00 08 98
53/1 00 07 41
T Narasapuram Krishnaraopalem 10/1A 00 18 96
Chintalapudi Venkampalem 75/8A 00 12 08
.
Chintalapudi Pragadavaram 670 00 14 76
575/2B 00 00 06
225/2 00 17 83
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6609
224/1 00 06 36 226 00 17 04 227 00 36 23 217/2A 00 04 22 217/1 00 13 56 210/6 00 16 46 159 00 25 91
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017/OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1756.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंर्ध प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के र्कियान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से ऊपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची में वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में र्शी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंर्ध प्रदेश), इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंजिल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिक्कना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विखाशापटनम - 530004, आंर्ध प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
| अनुसूची | |||||
| जिला : र्शीकाकु लम राज्य : आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| ट ेक्कलि | सवरापेटा | 79/4 | 00 | 00 | 20 |
| 79/12 | 00 | 00 | 35 | ||
| 79/9 | 00 | 00 | 03 | ||
| 75/7 | 00 | 03 | 00 | ||
| ट ेक्कलि | त ेलिनीलापुरम | 32/15 | 00 | 00 | 03 |
| 32/12 | 00 | 00 | 49 | ||
| 32/11 | 00 | 01 | 39 | ||
| 32/5 | 00 | 10 | 08 | ||
| 37/7 | 00 | 00 | 73 | ||
| 37/1 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| ट ेक्कलि | त ेलिनीलापुरम | 37/3 | 00 | 00 | 04 |
| 42/12 | 00 | 05 | 53 | ||
| 40/9 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 42/7 | 00 | 00 | 09 | ||
| 41/10b | 00 | 04 | 95 | ||
| 39/1 | 00 | 07 | 69 | ||
| ट ेक्कलि | तलागाम | 2/6B | 00 | 03 | 42 |
| 1/15A | 00 | 02 | 57 | ||
| 1/16A | 00 | 01 | 54 | ||
| 1/16B | 00 | 01 | 66 | ||
| 5/3 | 00 | 00 | 35 | ||
| 5/12 | 00 | 00 | 10 | ||
| 5/7 | 00 | 00 | 27 | ||
| 6/5 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 6/4 | 00 | 00 | 29 | ||
| 11/3 | 00 | 00 | 14 | ||
| 16/2 | 00 | 01 | 29 | ||
| 16/3 | 00 | 00 | 03 | ||
| 15/11 | 00 | 03 | 58 | ||
| 160/4 | 00 | 00 | 03 | ||
| 160/6 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 160/13 | 00 | 00 | 11 | ||
| 212/2 | 00 | 00 | 31 | ||
| 212/14 | 00 | 00 | 12 | ||
| 212/16 | 00 | 00 | 04 | ||
| 212/9 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 212/17 | 00 | 00 | 26 | ||
| 212/18 | 00 | 05 | 15 | ||
| 176/14 | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 176/10 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 210/68 | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 210/67 | 00 | 00 | 35 | ||
| 210/65 | 00 | 00 | 39 | ||
| 210/64 | 00 | 00 | 34 | ||
| 210/11 | 00 | 00 | 31 | ||
| 210/12 | 00 | 00 | 71 | ||
| 210/19 | 00 | 00 | 17 | ||
| 210/28P | 00 | 00 | 21 | ||
| ट ेक्कलि | तलागाम | 159/13p | 00 | 05 | 67 |
| 210/1B | 00 | 01 | 83 | ||
| 260 | 00 | 06 | 48 | ||
| 9/5 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| ट ेक्कलि | स ंपतिरावु रामाकृ ष्णापुरम | 257/1 | 00 | 01 | 45 |
| 264/3 | 00 | 01 | 74 | ||
| 264/4 | 00 | 00 | 41 | ||
| 264/8 | 00 | 01 | 67 | ||
| 267/3 | 00 | 00 | 44 | ||
| 268 | 00 | 00 | 60 | ||
| 269 | 00 | 00 | 19 | ||
| 271/1 | 00 | 00 | 10 | ||
| 276 | 00 | 00 | 12 | ||
| 277/6 | 00 | 00 | 69 | ||
| 257/6 | 00 | 03 | 24 | ||
| 265/2P | 00 | 01 | 42 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018
S.O. 1756.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM | STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | ||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| TEKKALI | SAVARAPETA | 79/4 | 00 | 00 | 20 |
| 79/12 | 00 | 00 | 35 | ||
| 79/9 | 00 | 00 | 03 | ||
| 75/7 | 00 | 03 | 00 | ||
| TEKKALI | TELINILAPURAM | 32/15 | 00 | 00 | 03 |
| 32/12 | 00 | 00 | 49 | ||
| 32/11 | 00 | 01 | 39 | ||
| 32/5 | 00 | 10 | 08 | ||
| 37/7 | 00 | 00 | 73 | ||
| 37/1 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 37/3 | 00 | 00 | 04 | ||
| 42/12 | 00 | 05 | 53 | ||
| 40/9 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 42/7 | 00 | 00 | 09 | ||
| 41/10b | 00 | 04 | 95 | ||
| 39/1 | 00 | 07 | 69 | ||
| TEKKALI | TALAGAM | 2/6B | 00 | 03 | 42 |
| 1/15A | 00 | 02 | 57 | ||
| 1/16A | 00 | 01 | 54 | ||
| 1/16B | 00 | 01 | 66 | ||
| 5/3 | 00 | 00 | 35 | ||
| 5/12 | 00 | 00 | 10 | ||
| 5/7 | 00 | 00 | 27 | ||
| 6/5 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 6/4 | 00 | 00 | 29 | ||
| 11/3 | 00 | 00 | 14 | ||
| 16/2 | 00 | 01 | 29 | ||
| 16/3 | 00 | 00 | 03 | ||
| 15/11 | 00 | 03 | 58 | ||
| 160/4 | 00 | 00 | 03 | ||
| 160/6 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 160/13 | 00 | 00 | 11 | ||
| 212/2 | 00 | 00 | 31 | ||
| 212/14 | 00 | 00 | 12 | ||
| 212/16 | 00 | 00 | 04 | ||
| 212/9 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 212/17 | 00 | 00 | 26 | ||
| 212/18 | 00 | 05 | 15 | ||
| 176/14 | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 176/10 | 00 | 00 | 02 | ||
| 210/68 | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 210/67 | 00 | 00 | 35 | ||
| 210/65 | 00 | 00 | 39 | ||
| 210/64 | 00 | 00 | 34 | ||
| 210/11 | 00 | 00 | 31 | ||
| 210/12 | 00 | 00 | 71 | ||
| 210/19 | 00 | 00 | 17 | ||
| 210/28P | 00 | 00 | 21 | ||
| TEKKALI | TALAGAM | 159/13p | 00 | 05 | 67 |
| 210/1B | 00 | 01 | 83 | ||
| 260 | 00 | 06 | 48 | ||
| 17/10 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| TEKKALI | SAMPATIRAO RAMAKRISHNAPURAM | 257/1 | 00 | 01 | 45 |
| 264/3 | 00 | 01 | 74 | ||
| 264/4 | 00 | 00 | 41 | ||
| 264/8 | 00 | 01 | 67 | ||
| 267/3 | 00 | 00 | 44 | ||
| 268 | 00 | 00 | 60 | ||
| 269 | 00 | 00 | 19 | ||
| 271/1 | 00 | 00 | 10 | ||
| 276 | 00 | 00 | 12 | ||
| 277/6 | 00 | 00 | 69 | ||
| 257/6 | 00 | 03 | 24 | ||
| 265/2P | 00 | 01 | 42 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017/OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1757.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि आंर्ध प्रदेश राज्य में पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पारादीप- हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना के र्कियान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;
और कें र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमी में जो इस से ऊपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची में वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
कोई भी (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस (21) दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबन्ध में र्शी एम. आर. आर. शेषु, सक्षम प्राधिकारी (आंर्ध प्रदेश), इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड (पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग), पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना, चौथी मंजिल, एल.आई.सी.
एनेक्सी भवन, थिक्कना (डायमंड पार्क ) रोड़, आर.टी.सी. कॉम्पलेक्स के पास, विशाशापटनम - 530004, आंर्ध प्रदेश राज्य को लिखित रूप से आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
| अनुसूची | |||||
| जिला : र्शीकाकु लम राज्य : आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| स ंताबोम्मालि | इज्जावरम | 4/19 | 00 | 00 | 19 |
| 8/2B | 00 | 05 | 84 | ||
| 41/5 | 00 | 01 | 62 | ||
| 38/4 | 00 | 01 | 42 | ||
| स ंताबोम्मालि | ब ंदावनम ृ | 4/10 | 00 | 00 | 07 |
| 4/6 | 00 | 00 | 99 | ||
| 4/1 | 00 | 00 | 22 | ||
| 2/9 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| 2/8 | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 2/5 | 00 | 00 | 11 | ||
| 36/6 | 00 | 12 | 95 | ||
| स ंताबोम्मालि | अरिकावलासा | 83/3 | 00 | 01 | 51 |
| 81/2C | 00 | 04 | 72 | ||
| 79/2 | 00 | 05 | 41 | ||
| 80/1 | 00 | 00 | 47 | ||
| 80/7 | 00 | 00 | 94 | ||
| 67/13 | 00 | 01 | 86 | ||
| 67/11 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 68/4 | 00 | 00 | 47 | ||
| 69/2 | 00 | 04 | 50 | ||
| 70/14 | 00 | 03 | 97 | ||
| 70/5 | 00 | 00 | 10 | ||
| 70/4 | 00 | 00 | 30 | ||
| 43/7A | 00 | 0 | 11 | ||
| 43/4 | 00 | 01 | 27 | ||
| 43/1 | 00 | 01 | 25 | ||
| 30/9D | 00 | 01 | 58 | ||
| 30/7 | 00 | 01 | 00 | ||
| 30/5 | 00 | 01 | 88 | ||
| 29/3 | 00 | 00 | 39 | ||
| 16/8 | 00 | 00 | 72 | ||
| 16/7 | 00 | 00 | 86 | ||
| 16/9 | 00 | 00 | 73 | ||
| 16/5 | 00 | 01 | 80 | ||
| 5/6 | 00 | 00 | 48 | ||
| 5/4 | 00 | 00 | 68 | ||
| 5/3 | 00 | 00 | 11 | ||
| 16/13 | 00 | 09 | 21 | ||
| 17/7P | 00 | 01 | 22 | ||
| 16/14 | 00 | 02 | 23 | ||
| स ंताबोम्मालि | दंडुगोपालापुरम | 1/1 | 00 | 05 | 60 |
| स ंताबोम्मालि | चिन्नातु ंगाम | 9/2 | 00 | 00 | 68 |
| 9/4 | 00 | 00 | 16 | ||
| 11/9 | 00 | 00 | 83 | ||
| 11/7 | 00 | 00 | 44 | ||
| 12/9 | 00 | 00 | 15 | ||
| 12/8A | 00 | 00 | 63 | ||
| 12/8B | 00 | 00 | 23 | ||
| 14/4 | 00 | 00 | 03 | ||
| 14/7 | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 43/1 | 00 | 00 | 34 | ||
| 9/5 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| संताबोम्मालि | पेद्दातु ंगाम | 36/3 | 00 | 00 | 90 |
| 39/8 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 38/4 | 00 | 00 | 44 | ||
| 51 | 00 | 00 | 35 |
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओ.आर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018
S.O. 1757.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products in the state of Andhra Pradesh a pipeline should be laid for implementing Paradip- Hyderabad Pipeline Project under Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person who is interested in the land described in the said schedule, may submit objection in writing to Shri. M. R. R. Seshu, Competent Authority (Andhra Pradesh) Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline Project, 4th floor, LIC Annexe Building, Thikkana (Diamond Park) Road, Near RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam - 530004 within twenty one (21) days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public.
| SCHEDULE | |||||
| DISTRICT : SRIKAKULAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
| SANTA BOMMALI | IJJAVARAM | 4/19 | 00 | 00 | 19 |
| 8/2B | 00 | 05 | 84 | ||
| 41/5 | 00 | 01 | 62 | ||
| 38/4 | 00 | 01 | 42 | ||
| SANTA BOMMALI | BRUNDAVANAM | 4/10 | 00 | 00 | 07 |
| 4/6 | 00 | 00 | 99 | ||
| 4/1 | 00 | 00 | 22 | ||
| 2/9 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| 2/8 | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 2/5 | 00 | 00 | 11 | ||
| 36/6 | 00 | 12 | 95 | ||
| SANTA BOMMALI | ARIKAVALASA | 83/3 | 00 | 01 | 51 |
| 81/2C | 00 | 04 | 72 | ||
| 79/2 | 00 | 05 | 41 | ||
| 80/1 | 00 | 00 | 47 | ||
| 80/7 | 00 | 00 | 94 | ||
| 67/13 | 00 | 01 | 86 | ||
| 67/11 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 68/4 | 00 | 00 | 47 | ||
| 69/2 | 00 | 04 | 50 | ||
| 70/14 | 00 | 03 | 97 | ||
| 70/5 | 00 | 00 | 10 | ||
| 70/4 | 00 | 00 | 30 | ||
| 43/7A | 00 | 0 | 11 | ||
| 43/4 | 00 | 01 | 27 | ||
| 43/1 | 00 | 01 | 25 | ||
| 30/9D | 00 | 01 | 58 | ||
| 30/7 | 00 | 01 | 00 | ||
| 30/5 | 00 | 01 | 88 | ||
| 29/3 | 00 | 00 | 39 | ||
| 16/8 | 00 | 00 | 72 | ||
| 16/7 | 00 | 00 | 86 | ||
| 16/9 | 00 | 00 | 73 | ||
| 16/5 | 00 | 01 | 80 | ||
| 5/6 | 00 | 00 | 48 | ||
| 5/4 | 00 | 00 | 68 | ||
| 5/3 | 00 | 00 | 11 | ||
| 16/13 | 00 | 09 | 21 | ||
| 17/7P | 00 | 01 | 22 | ||
| 16/14 | 00 | 02 | 23 | ||
| SANTA BOMMALI | DANDUGOPALAPURAM | 1/1 | 00 | 05 | 60 |
| SANTA BOMMALI | CHINNA TUNGAM | 9/2 | 00 | 00 | 68 |
| 9/4 | 00 | 00 | 16 | ||
| 11/9 | 00 | 00 | 83 | ||
| 11/7 | 00 | 00 | 44 | ||
| 12/9 | 00 | 00 | 15 | ||
| 12/8A | 00 | 00 | 63 | ||
| 12/8B | 00 | 00 | 23 | ||
| 14/4 | 00 | 00 | 03 | ||
| 14/7 | 00 | 00 | 07 | ||
| 43/1 | 00 | 00 | 34 | ||
| 9/5 | 00 | 00 | 01 | ||
| SANTA BOMMALI | PEDDATUNGAM | 36/3 | 00 | 00 | 90 |
| 39/8 | 00 | 00 | 05 | ||
| 38/4 | 00 | 00 | 44 | ||
| 51 | 00 | 00 | 35 |
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017/OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1758.—के न्र्दीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके प(cid:7391)ात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 उप धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. 2102 तारीख 07.09.2017 जिसका प्रकाशन भारत के राजपत्र संख्या 36, भाग II, खण्ड 3, उप खण्ड (ii) तारीख 09.09.2017 में किया गया है। इस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिदिष्ट आंर्धप्रदेश राज्य के जिला विजयानगरम के मंडल :गुर्ला, गरिविड़ि, कोतावलासा एवं चीपुरुपल्लि की भूमि में, ओडीशा राज्य में पारादीप से तेलंगाना राज्य में हैदराबाद तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7287)रेशन लिमिटेड के द्वारा र्कियान्वित किए जा रहे "पारादीप-हैदराबाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना" के संबंध में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी:
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थ(cid:7277)।और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी नें के न्र्दीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के प(cid:7391)ात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है:
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एतद् द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में विनिदिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अजित किया जाए:
और के न्र्दीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निद(cid:7287)श देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से के न्र्दीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए सभी बिल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7287)रेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा(cid:31)
अनुसूची
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
चीपुरुपल्लि पत्तिकायावलासा 197/17 00 00 12 6618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
चीपुरुपल्लि पत्तिकायावलासा 202/9 00 01 34
173/8 00 07 05
173/7 00 05 67
173/9 00 04 71
173/6 00 00 49
173/5 00 07 43
170/17 00 04 01
170/16 00 00 88
170/18 00 05 49
170/19 00 05 25
170/20 00 02 27
170/22 00 01 07
170/21 00 03 85
170/7 00 02 11
170/6 00 02 10
170/5 00 03 80
170/4 00 03 05
167/18 00 00 14
167/17 00 03 11
167/12 00 00 10
167/11 00 01 47
167/10 00 03 43
167/7 00 05 87
167/3 00 00 10
167/6 00 04 31
167/5 00 05 76
166/3 00 04 25
चीपुरुपल्लि पेदानड़िपल्लि 95/3 00 09 45
95/2 00 03 24
95/1 00 27 85
86/2 00 30 43
87/10 00 01 05
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6619
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
चीपुरुपल्लि पेदानड़िपल्लि 87/15 00 03 30
87/16 00 04 31
87/17 00 04 45
87/18 00 00 72
53/1 00 00 36
53/9 00 03 94
53/11 00 15 53
53/10 00 05 42
55/1 00 02 12
53/5 00 08 64
55/3 00 06 74
55/7 00 04 18
55/6 00 01 13
55/8 00 05 26
55/10 00 07 30
55/9 00 00 10
56/1 00 00 60
56/2 00 14 44
56/3 00 02 70
57 00 02 70
69/1 00 06 04
69/2 00 14 47
69/3 00 03 42
69/5 00 03 04
69/6 00 03 69
69/9 00 01 53
71/6 00 08 11
71/3 00 08 50
72/2 00 13 72
72/1 00 02 43
72/4 00 11 53
72/8 00 00 10
6620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
73/3 00 01 99
चीपुरुपल्लि चिनानड़िपल्लि 43/1 00 05 58
42/2 00 01 62
42/7 00 04 68
42/9 00 07 77
42/10 00 08 90
42/13 00 02 37
42/12 00 05 18
42/11 00 00 10
39 00 16 83
38/1 00 05 91
38/5 00 00 10
18/10 00 00 10
18/11 00 01 22
18/14 00 04 93
18/15 00 00 10
18/13 00 01 45
18/16 00 06 66
19/15 00 00 17
19/16 00 01 13
19/20 00 02 39
19/21 00 02 22
19/22 00 03 70
19/23 00 01 64
19/28 00 00 77
19/27 00 02 99
19/29 00 00 26
19/30 00 01 42
19/31 00 00 53
19/26 00 02 43
20/2 00 00 18
21/6 00 03 86
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6621
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
चीपुरुपल्लि चिनानड़िपल्लि 21/15 00 02 71
21/12 00 00 36
21/16 00 00 32
21/17 00 13 86
21/21 00 00 34
21/20 00 00 10
7/15 00 00 75
25/1 00 07 96
26/3 00 11 24
26/2 00 28 92
26/1 00 03 33
27/1 00 10 96
27/2 00 04 07
27/9 00 01 40
27/8 00 00 10
चीपुरुपल्लि इटाकर्लापल्लि 168/18 00 09 28
168/22 00 00 13
168/23 00 03 66
168/30 00 01 45
168/31 00 00 10
168/27 00 03 99
168/26 00 00 88
168/28 00 00 60
168/24 00 03 61
168/25 00 00 10
168/10 00 10 92
169/7 00 00 36
169/6 00 02 36
169/2 00 05 74
169/3 00 01 05
169/4 00 00 26
169/1 00 01 99
6622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
चीपुरुपल्लि इटाकर्लापल्लि 166/4 00 00 10
166/3 00 02 45
166/2 00 01 51
166/17 00 01 58
166/1 00 00 22
166/18 00 04 10
165/14 00 02 07
165/15 00 02 64
165/16 00 02 19
165/17 00 02 30
165/6 00 07 09
165/5 00 02 32
165/18 00 00 10
165/19 00 04 34
165/20 00 04 40
165/22 00 01 24
164/24 00 06 61
164/21 00 03 17
164/20 00 02 88
164/19 00 03 04
164/18 00 03 08
164/16 00 08 04
156/26 00 16 66
156/23 00 03 63
156/22 00 01 32
156/25 00 05 19
156/13 00 06 94
156/12 00 15 08
156/11 00 00 50
155/45 00 04 33
155/23 00 02 19
155/17 00 03 27
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6623
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
चीपुरुपल्लि इटाकर्लापल्लि 154/5 00 03 77
154/3 00 03 05
154/2 00 04 23
154/1 00 04 28
153/20 00 00 10
153/19 00 01 13
153/18 00 02 50
153/17 00 02 24
153/16 00 02 71
152/3 00 11 94
150/13 00 07 19
150/6 00 11 04
150/7 00 01 82
177/3 00 06 19
177/2 00 16 64
177/1 00 07 88
178/1 00 03 90
176/3 00 11 17
176/2 00 07 61
176/1 00 22 51
147/3 00 34 43
चीपुरुपल्लि पोतायावलसा 78/4 00 19 96
78/3 00 21 48
76/2 00 21 85
76/1 00 02 34
70/4 00 08 66
72/2 00 22 74
72/3 00 03 36
72/4 00 04 13
चीपुरुपल्लि पर्ला 154/15 00 29 21
155/6 00 01 65
163/2 00 04 50
6624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
चीपुरुपल्लि पर्ला 161/17 00 01 48
161/16 00 03 05
162/14 00 01 26
162/13 00 00 81
161/9 00 01 45
162/10 00 00 86
162/9 00 01 11
161/8 00 00 77
161/5 00 02 55
161/4 00 02 71
161/2 00 00 79
161/1 00 07 54
160/19 00 01 20
160/20 00 01 17
160/21 00 00 97
160/14 00 00 79
160/15 00 02 25
160/9 00 01 19
160/10 00 01 11
160/5 00 01 83
160/3 00 00 53
160/4 00 02 78
100/28 00 00 91
100/26 00 00 92
184/2 00 03 83
184/1 00 03 78
185/15 00 02 00
185/16 00 03 05
185/13 00 00 32
185/12 00 04 98
185/11 00 05 96
185/4 00 03 07
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6625
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
चीपुरुपल्लि पर्ला 186 00 06 59
189/12 00 05 75
188/2 00 02 86
188/5 00 00 38
188/7 00 00 65
188/8 00 00 48
188/9 00 00 77
188/1 00 05 42
189/11 00 00 86
191/17 00 05 08
191/16 00 00 64
191/14 00 01 55
191/13 00 02 29
191/12 00 01 15
191/3 00 08 02
192/19 00 02 17
192/8 00 04 37
192/18 00 00 53
192/17 00 01 19
192/11 00 02 97
192/12 00 01 93
192/10 00 03 28
192/4 00 00 10
192/3 00 00 12
192/2 00 00 88
192/13 00 01 71
192/1 00 01 94
193/3 00 00 16
193/2 00 00 96
193/1 00 00 64
78/15 00 00 10
गरिविड़ि दुम्मेदा 179/16 00 03 48
6626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गरिविड़ि दुम्मेदा 176/10 00 01 57
176/9 00 04 04
176/8 00 04 72
176/7 00 02 67
176/6 00 09 87
176/4 00 13 10
60 00 03 47
176/3 00 15 67
165/4 00 10 39
165/5 00 02 40
165/2 00 00 12
165/6 00 02 05
165/7 00 14 22
165/12 00 04 79
165/13 00 00 10
164/25 00 02 67
164/31 00 04 86
164/30 00 06 53
164/29 00 02 96
164/11 00 00 26
163/5 00 00 26
163/4 00 07 79
163/2 00 00 10
163/3 00 00 79
69/16 00 04 20
70/1 00 15 02
70/5 00 04 29
70/9 00 00 62
70/6 00 00 10
68/1 00 00 94
67/7 00 02 32
67/6 00 11 85
66/3 00 02 99 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6627
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गरिविड़ि दुम्मेदा 85/5 00 00 51
85/2 00 09 16
85/3 00 00 66
85/7 00 07 56
85/9 00 01 49
85/10 00 00 20
85/8 00 04 61
85/11 00 08 14
85/13 00 02 01
95/16 01 02 28
95/15 00 02 32
95/14 00 04 52
95/17 00 01 10
96/2 00 06 85
96/3 00 02 13
96/4 00 00 18
96/8 00 04 27
96/7 00 00 10
96/9 00 05 67
96/14 00 00 58
96/13 00 05 57
96/12 00 00 22
96/19 00 09 01
97/1 00 05 75
97/2 00 05 20
97/3 00 10 34
101/11 00 02 82
101/35 00 14 13
101/36 00 02 09
101/28 00 00 82
101/29 00 00 10
101/27 00 02 57
6628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गरिविड़ि दुम्मेदा 100/19 00 00 14
100/7 00 00 25
100/8 00 03 84
100/9 00 03 99
100/11 00 00 16
100/12 00 02 87
107/27 00 02 63
100/13 00 02 07
107/28 00 02 47
107/29 00 01 39
107/18 00 00 52
107/15 00 02 89
107/16 00 01 77
107/13 00 02 00
107/12 00 03 64
107/11 00 02 84
130/19 00 00 10
107/9 00 00 95
130/14 00 10 58
107/4 00 01 78
107/3 00 05 34
129/1 00 00 10
108 00 24 54
127/2 00 04 64
127/3 00 04 74
गुर्ला सदानंदापुरम 73/8 00 00 88
73/5 00 01 10
गुर्ला नगल्लावलसा 86/15 00 00 10
87/20 00 06 21
87/22 00 00 40
87/21 00 01 65
87/18 00 06 63
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6629
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला नगल्लावलसा 87/2 00 03 25
84/29 00 02 26
84/31 00 00 59
84/30 00 00 70
84/27 00 00 27
84/28 00 05 29
84/25 00 02 85
84/24 00 00 10
82/1 00 05 54
83/2 00 21 51
83/5 00 01 26
83/4 00 01 93
83/3 00 01 39
56 00 06 00
54/13 00 08 77
54/12 00 00 35
55/11 00 01 30
55/10 00 13 20
55/9 00 00 94
55/8 00 10 00
55/12 00 01 67
55/13 00 00 24
43 00 03 37
42/10 00 23 10
42/6 00 01 30
42/5 00 01 87
41/14 00 04 24
41/12 00 02 57
41/11 00 02 26
41/6 00 02 38
41/1 00 02 69
40/28 00 04 02
40/15 00 00 90 6630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला नगल्लावलसा 40/8 00 00 43
39/11 00 00 17
39/8 00 00 10
39/12 00 05 04
39/22 00 00 45
39/23 00 00 53
39/13 00 01 80
39/14 00 00 19
39/5 00 02 66
39/4 00 00 19
39/3 00 01 59
37/24 00 05 31
37/15 00 04 94
37/14 00 02 82
37/13 00 02 65
37/6 00 02 81
37/5 00 01 24
62/2 00 00 10
62/1 00 02 45
34/19 00 00 46
34/15 00 00 78
34/13 00 01 10
34/10 00 00 55
34/9 00 00 10
65/11 00 03 21
65/1 00 06 15
65/9 00 03 50
65/8 00 00 55
65/7 00 08 21
65/2 00 04 74
65/6 00 02 31
65/3 00 02 80
29/1 00 03 02
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6631
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला नगल्लावलसा 29/13 00 01 40
29/15 00 04 50
29/16 00 05 26
29/18 00 07 84
29/17 00 00 49
66/2 00 02 76
66/3 00 01 75
66/4 00 00 10
66/1 00 00 91
गुर्ला जम्मु 88/11 00 12 18
90/3 00 08 63
90/4 00 00 30
90/2 00 04 74
90/7 00 07 54
90/6 00 01 08
93/21 00 06 59
93/22 00 02 74
93/12 00 03 58
93/24 00 07 63
93/13 00 00 12
93/9 00 01 03
93/11 00 02 72
93/10 00 04 18
93/7 00 00 74
93/5 00 04 89
93/6 00 00 10
95/20 00 00 10
95/21 00 01 81
95/22 00 06 45
95/24 00 04 04
95/23 00 00 81
97/23 00 00 10
6632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला जम्मू 97/13 00 01 34
97/10 00 00 10
97/14 00 05 00
97/15 00 01 19
97/7 00 03 67
97/6 00 05 08
97/3 00 03 33
97/2 00 00 54
275/3 00 00 27
275/2 00 01 38
275/1 00 06 12
275/10 00 00 93
270/22 00 00 22
270/23 00 02 83
270/26 00 01 40
270/24 00 00 10
270/27 00 01 96
270/28 00 05 52
270/25 00 00 69
270/10 00 01 73
269/12 00 04 96
269/11 00 01 05
269/14 00 00 32
269/10 00 04 62
269/9 00 04 08
269/8 00 00 30
269/5 00 01 86
269/7 00 01 52
296/6 00 01 15
269/4 00 00 10
268/4 00 02 20
268/3 00 02 79
268/1 00 04 40 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6633
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला जम्मू 112/5 00 00 68
112/8 00 07 47
112/10 00 08 40
112/9 00 03 09
111/2 00 00 10
111/1 00 05 56
111/3 00 01 84
109/3 00 00 10
109/5 00 00 50
109/13 00 01 07
109/12 00 03 09
109/11 00 01 61
109/10 00 01 10
110/1 00 01 83
108/14 00 01 08
108/15 00 03 20
108/18 00 00 28
108/19 00 02 80
108/12 00 00 10
108/13 00 00 90
108/20 00 04 17
108/23 00 03 41
108/24 00 08 79
108/25 00 01 39
107/35 00 04 59
117/2 00 16 18
117/1 00 10 16
119/1 00 08 59
118/9 00 01 13
118/2 00 06 05
126/36 00 03 37
126/35 00 02 25
6634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला जम्मू 123/5 00 00 68
123/1 00 06 69
123/2 00 00 10
125 00 05 30
151/11 00 01 50
151/14 00 02 00
151/15 00 00 40
151/12 00 02 55
151/10 00 01 70
151/6 00 08 40
152/8 00 02 23
152/1 00 00 10
182/25 00 00 10
182/26 00 05 26
182/27 00 00 45
182/18 00 00 35
182/19 00 02 05
182/17 00 02 27
182/11 00 01 00
182/9 00 00 10
182/10 00 02 00
182/12 00 02 71
182/13 00 00 41
183/19 00 00 72
183/18 00 00 38
183/17 00 00 10
183/20 00 02 48
183/21 00 04 95
183/24 00 00 36
183/22 00 01 39
183/23 00 00 22
183/7 00 00 92
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6635
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला जम्मू 183/2 00 06 47
179/12 00 01 14
179/13 00 04 71
179/11 00 02 55
179/10 00 02 37
179/2 00 02 35
179/1 00 02 94
178/24 00 01 52
178/23 00 01 44
178/22 00 01 62
178/4 00 00 10
178/3 00 04 29
178/2 00 00 52
178/1 00 02 19
176/31 00 00 10
176/30 00 10 89
176/1 00 05 82
175/23 00 00 15
175/20 00 06 34
175/19 00 01 90
197/19 00 06 76
197/20 00 04 79
197/30 00 00 89
197/29 00 00 69
197/28 00 00 73
197/27 00 00 28
197/26 00 00 39
197/25 00 00 36
197/24 00 00 25
197/23 00 03 85
196/19 00 14 35
196/25 00 09 19
6636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला जम्मू 196/22 00 00 54
209/2 00 01 99
211/19 00 01 71
211/18 00 00 40
211/7 00 13 43
211/17 00 00 16
211/6 00 00 10
211/8 00 00 19
211/16 00 00 10
211/10 00 02 51
211/9 00 02 22
211/11 00 02 81
211/12 00 02 57
211/15 00 00 30
211/14 00 00 61
211/13 00 02 15
216/4 00 04 95
216/3 00 00 14
214/12 00 00 10
214/11 00 00 65
214/10 00 01 03
214/9 00 04 80
214/7 00 00 28
214/8 00 07 49
गुर्ला गरिड़ा 99/23 00 02 04
99/24 00 02 68
99/25 00 01 33
99/26 00 03 58
99/17 00 01 92
99/27 00 02 53
99/28 00 02 43
99/29 00 02 43
99/13 00 00 11 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6637
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला गरिड़ा 76/6 00 05 45
76/7 00 00 55
76/9 00 15 63
75/14 00 01 83
75/12 00 03 61
75/13 00 00 62
75/11 00 05 60
75/1 00 00 16
79/15 00 00 10
79/14 00 02 06
79/12 00 01 94
79/11 00 00 10
80/20 00 06 96
80/18 00 00 32
80/12 00 02 90
80/13 00 03 31
80/5 00 02 65
80/4 00 05 34
80/2 00 01 05
31/8 00 02 10
31/7 00 00 93
32/19 00 00 10
32/18 00 01 46
32/17 00 02 45
32/16 00 01 32
30/20 00 00 60
30/19 00 00 10
30/16 00 02 65
30/15 00 02 68
30/14 00 00 10
30/6 00 01 19
30/7 00 09 41
30/3 00 00 85 34/34 00 00 986638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला गरिड़ा 34/32 00 01 73
34/31 00 01 74
34/23 00 02 10
34/22 00 00 20
34/24 00 01 59
34/25 00 00 10
34/14 00 00 73
34/15 00 01 15
34/16 00 00 19
34/9 00 01 53
34/8 00 01 31
34/4 00 03 33
34/2 00 01 68
34/3 00 00 21
35/2 00 00 10
35/5 00 00 54
35/6 00 00 81
35/8 00 01 09
35/7 00 00 21
35/9 00 00 66
35/10 00 00 56
35/11 00 00 49
35/12 00 02 35
35/13 00 01 41
35/14 00 00 48
35/17 00 00 10
35/32 00 02 49
35/34 00 01 81
35/35 00 00 35
35/31 00 00 10
12/12 00 00 30
12/13 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6639
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला गरिड़ा 12/6 00 03 00
12/5 00 05 66
7/10 00 04 82
7/9 00 04 37
7/24 00 01 46
7/23 00 00 99
7/22 00 00 32
7/21 00 00 14
7/20 00 00 25
7/19 00 00 62
7/11 00 06 94
7/12 00 02 64
7/13 00 05 21
7/14 00 00 10
7/15 00 00 10
6/19 00 06 93
6/20 00 05 10
6/21 00 05 05
6/22 00 05 44
6/23 00 05 47
6/24 00 02 81
3/3 00 01 92
3/9 00 00 20
3/8 00 01 55
3/7 00 02 99
3/6 00 07 20
3/5 00 02 80
3/11 00 04 00
3/12 00 00 10
2/8 00 08 95
2/4 00 07 65
2/5 00 06 16
गुर्ला गोर्लापेटाजगन्नाधपुरम 23/2 00 01 626640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला गोर्लापेटाजगन्नाधपुरम 23/21 00 03 87
23/20 00 00 58
23/18 00 01 14
23/17 00 02 76
23/16 00 04 17
23/10 00 02 20
23/13 00 01 19
23/12 00 02 29
23/11 00 02 10
23/9 00 01 11
22/12 00 08 39
22/26 00 00 18
22/25 00 00 73
22/13 00 02 67
22/24 00 02 60
22/23 00 03 65
22/18 00 05 75
18/21 00 00 19
18/23 00 00 40
18/22 00 03 34
13/13 00 03 81
14/8 00 02 90
14/7 00 05 42
14/6 00 07 63
14/3 00 08 11
14/2 00 10 31
14/1 00 00 59
15/1 00 07 77
11/16 00 02 57
11/15 00 21 61
11/14 00 00 10
गुर्ला के ल्ला 34/1 00 03 30
8/18 00 02 52 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6641
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला के ल्ला 8/25 00 08 32
8/24 00 00 87
8/20 00 06 85
8/19 00 00 29
13/23 00 00 20
13/22 00 08 90
13/21 00 00 57
13/20 00 04 87
13/17 00 09 30
13/16 00 03 39
13/15 00 05 38
13/1 00 04 38
13/2 00 00 10
347/20 00 05 56
346/2 00 07 69
346/1 00 00 45
346/3 00 11 01
346/4 00 11 90
346/7 00 00 65
346/6 00 01 72
346/5 00 06 57
346/8 00 01 20
14/10 00 06 47
14/9 00 00 10
गुर्ला गोषाड़ा 24/16 00 00 10
24/17 00 08 46
24/18 00 04 21
24/20 00 00 86
24/19 00 06 71
24/8 00 02 96
24/9 00 04 49
24/10 00 02 36
6642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला गोषाड़ा 21/8 00 00 10
21/5 00 01 98
21/6 00 02 00
21/1 00 04 91
20/12 00 03 88
20/10 00 04 42
20/9 00 01 37
20/5 00 03 39
19/2 00 05 61
19/1 00 13 54
19/4 00 00 56
16/1 00 07 51
16/5 00 03 28
16/3 00 06 70
16/4 00 00 10
15/6 00 05 30
15/5 00 01 83
15/3 00 00 15
15/8 00 07 34
15/9 00 04 40
15/15 00 00 25
15/14 00 01 49
15/12 00 00 89
57/5 00 03 16
57/6 00 03 40
57/7 00 03 56
57/10 00 01 50
57/12 00 04 04
57/9 00 01 27
57/13 00 05 05
57/14 00 00 29
64/2 00 01 28
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6643
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला गोषाड़ा 66/3 00 04 68
66/2 00 00 10
66/4 00 02 67
66/5 00 04 73
66/6 00 04 15
66/17 00 00 90
66/16 00 04 67
66/15 00 00 90
66/13 00 01 73
68/9 00 03 08
68/8 00 03 93
68/7 00 06 76
68/4 00 03 53
68/3 00 06 31
68/5 00 00 39
68/6 00 00 92
69/1 00 01 79
गुर्ला कलवाचेर्ला 60/6 00 00 46
60/7 00 01 87
60/8 00 02 83
60/11 00 02 42
60/9 00 01 13
60/3 00 00 17
60/10 00 01 22
62/4 00 00 10
62/5 00 02 82
62/6 00 01 46
62/7 00 00 95
62/8 00 03 56
62/9 00 01 85
29/14 00 03 99
29/15 00 04 53
29/13 00 00 81
29/11 00 00 54 6644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला कलवाचेर्ला 29/17 00 00 10
29/10 00 02 71
29/32 00 00 10
29/9 00 02 55
29/8 00 04 96
29/3 00 04 22
29/33 00 00 10
29/2 00 02 68
29/1 00 02 94
30/21 00 00 60
30/20 00 01 00
30/19 00 01 04
30/18 00 01 71
30/14 00 00 38
30/17 00 02 91
30/16 00 03 14
30/15 00 03 10
30/6 00 03 63
30/4 00 03 49
30/3 00 01 54
28/2 00 01 66
28/1 00 04 22
32/8 00 02 90
32/7 00 00 23
32/9 00 01 54
32/10 00 01 94
32/11 00 02 24
32/12 00 00 10
32/6 00 02 77
32/5 00 00 45
32/3 00 02 79
32/2 00 04 43
34/14 00 00 59
34/10 00 00 58
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6645
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला कलवाचेर्ला 34/7 00 01 60
34/2 00 02 06
34/1 00 04 34
37/7 00 05 21
37/4 00 05 61
37/9 00 00 30
37/10 00 00 35
37/11 00 00 44
37/2 00 00 10
37/3 00 04 34
37/12 00 04 24
38 00 03 55
39/6 00 00 47
39/7 00 02 24
39/5 00 08 87
39/8 00 00 10
39/3 00 00 29
39/10 00 06 27
39/11 00 02 64
39/13 00 00 54
39/12 00 04 73
2/10 00 00 36
1/3 00 20 37
2/6 00 03 85
2/7 00 05 89
गुर्ला कोटागंर्डेड़ु 92/3 00 10 90
86/1 00 00 42
63/8 00 03 62
63/9 00 00 31
64/22 00 00 32
64/21 00 01 49
64/20 00 04 57
6646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला कोटागंर्डेड़ु 65/5 00 08 61
48/16 00 12 10
48/17 00 03 74
48/3 00 00 69
48/1 00 05 73
31/30 00 04 32
31/23 00 06 01
31/12 00 01 80
31/11 00 03 52
31/25 00 00 17
31/9 00 00 12
31/10 00 01 09
31/4 00 01 91
31/3 00 01 28
31/2 00 00 10
34/4 00 03 09
34/5 00 00 97
34/6 00 03 01
34/3 00 02 59
34/2 00 02 76
34/1 00 10 80
गुर्ला आनंदपुरम एंड बिट 194/2 00 07 78
194/3 00 00 83
194/4 00 00 68
194/5 00 00 81
194/6 00 01 48
194/1 00 03 35
195/5 00 00 67
195/4 00 00 82
195/3 00 00 34
195/6 00 01 32
195/7 00 02 51
195/9 00 00 10 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6647
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
गुर्ला आनंदपुरम एंड बिट 197/18 00 00 10
197/19 00 02 16
197/15 00 00 62
197/14 00 47 77
197/13 00 01 32
197/6 00 03 09
197/9 00 01 33
197/7 00 04 24
197/5 00 00 32
197/8 00 03 15
197/1 00 11 74
198/2 00 00 10
200/4 00 18 00
200/3 00 07 54
200/1 00 02 23
199/12 00 00 17
199/9 00 17 00
184/1 00 28 78
184/6 00 01 07
कोतावलासा नरापाम 10 00 01 93
8/1 00 18 47
4/3 00 08 70
5/10 00 00 93
5/16 00 07 37
5/19 00 00 10
91/1 00 08 28
91/2 00 07 29
कोतावलासा देवाड़ा 154/3 00 19 14
152/2 00 00 93
152/4 00 09 67
152/5 00 06 47
152/6 00 01 77
6648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा देवाड़ा 155/9 00 09 83
157/2 00 00 72
157/1 00 09 84
157/6 00 05 14
157/5 00 00 10
157/8 00 03 40
159/2 00 07 21
176/1 00 01 17
179/1 00 00 11
180/1 00 01 60
180/10 00 06 15
180/11 00 06 89
180/14 00 07 28
180/16 00 01 36
180/23 00 05 54
180/22 00 05 22
180/26 00 00 13
180/19 00 03 33
180/20 00 08 50
180/29 00 00 29
182/8 00 00 93
कोतावलासा वीराभर्दापुरम 61/1 00 06 45
61/2 00 00 53
61/3 00 06 55
61/4 00 07 02
61/6 00 02 35
61/13 00 07 15
61/9 00 01 84
61/10 00 01 63
61/11 00 01 38
61/12 00 01 90
59/2 00 04 55
63/5 00 06 87 63/8 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6649
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा वीराभर्दापुरम 63/10 00 00 10
63/15 00 06 71
58/7 00 00 10
64/3 00 00 10
64/6 00 00 35
65/1 00 05 35
65/3 00 06 17
65/4 00 00 15
66/5 00 00 71
कोतावलासा सु ंदरय्यापेटा 4/19 00 18 65
4/4 00 00 42
4/5 00 01 28
4/6 00 05 19
4/14 00 05 09
4/17 00 00 40
4/16 00 01 01
4/15 00 04 36
4/21 00 04 59
26/3 00 02 59
26/2 00 06 28
26/4 00 02 82
7/23 00 00 60
7/24 00 05 81
7/19 00 00 96
7/18 00 00 66
7/26 00 01 89
7/27 00 00 63
7/35 00 00 62
7/34 00 04 49
7/36 00 04 43
7/38 00 02 75
7/17 00 00 29
6650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा सु ंदरय्यापेटा 24/2 00 01 37
24/3 00 00 88
24/4 00 00 30
24/1 00 01 15
24/5 00 00 78
24/7 00 00 30
24/15 00 06 41
24/28 00 01 85
24/29 00 03 01
24/27 00 00 64
24/37 00 03 82
24/39 00 00 10
24/35 00 01 02
24/36 00 00 76
24/38 00 00 96
20/4 00 00 17
20/5 00 10 96
20/9 00 00 10
20/6 00 01 15
20/7 00 00 82
20/8 00 00 57
22/1 00 01 38
22/3 00 02 48
21/1 00 02 78
21/3 00 00 10
21/2 00 08 69
21/21 00 04 08
21/27 00 02 80
21/28 00 00 40
21/30 00 03 75
21/31 00 07 77
21/38 00 00 33
40/16 00 09 81
40/18 00 00 21
40/28 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6651
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा सु ंदरय्यापेटा 40/25 00 02 22
40/27 00 02 08
40/29 00 05 41
41/20 00 00 21
41/19 00 15 91
41/22 00 00 10
41/27 00 03 60
41/28 00 00 64
41/29 00 00 10
42/3 00 00 10
50/19 00 03 51
50/23 00 00 49
48/1 00 00 24
48/2 00 03 12
48/3 00 04 05
48/4 00 00 37
48/20 00 00 74
48/19 00 06 34
कोतावलासा चीपुरुवलासा 116 00 03 02
113/4 00 03 50
113/10 00 21 05
112/2 00 06 35
108/5 00 01 70
108/6 00 07 45
108/7 00 00 24
108/19 00 00 15
108/17 00 03 30
108/18 00 00 10
108/16 00 01 14
108/15 00 04 06
108/13 00 01 22
108/12 00 00 15
41/16 00 00 106652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा चीपुरुवलासा 41/27 00 00 76
41/29 00 03 95
41/37 00 04 04
41/36 00 00 51
41/38 00 00 84
42/13 00 00 92
106/1 00 00 10
106/2 00 02 37
106/22 00 02 72
106/19 00 01 32
106/23 00 00 29
106/24 00 00 65
106/20 00 01 28
106/17 00 00 10
106/16 00 02 76
106/29 00 01 12
106/15 00 02 51
106/37 00 02 90
106/36 00 00 10
106/38 00 01 69
106/12 00 00 82
106/41 00 02 01
98/1 00 05 65
98/2 00 01 51
98/3 00 01 14
98/7 00 00 52
98/9 00 13 46
98/6 00 00 38
98/10 00 00 45
98/11 00 02 53
98/12 00 00 51
98/13 00 04 28
97/8 00 00 10 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6653
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा चीपुरुवलासा 97/7 00 00 10
97/11 00 03 66
97/12 00 03 17
97/13 00 01 91
97/14 00 00 56
97/20 00 00 10
95/5 00 01 10
95/4 00 00 61
106/31 00 00 10
106/25 00 00 10
97/5 00 00 10
41/15 00 00 10
108/22 00 00 10
106/11 00 00 10
96/16 00 00 10
कोतावलासा गुलिविदाड़ा 28/8 00 05 98
27/2 00 00 42
27/4 00 04 61
27/7 00 15 43
27/8 00 01 57
27/9 00 00 93
25/1 00 02 15
25/3 00 10 31
25/7 00 03 70
25/5 00 00 86
25/6 00 00 74
25/9 00 03 12
24/2 00 00 12
24/3 00 00 92
24/14 00 00 10
24/13 00 02 32
24/16 00 00 10
6654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा गुलिविदाड़ा 38/9 00 02 88
38/7 00 00 10
38/10 00 01 20
38/8 00 10 91
37/8 00 12 98
37/7 00 00 10
37/9 00 00 26
37/11 00 00 29
37/13 00 00 13
37/14 00 06 68
37/17 00 10 19
36/7 00 01 30
41/1 00 07 12
41/2 00 00 24
41/14 00 08 82
41/18 00 00 68
41/19 00 10 66
44/33 00 07 16
43/1 00 09 21
43/3 00 04 32
51/8 00 03 65
51/10 00 00 95
52/1 00 01 39
52/2 00 13 48
53/1 00 01 59
55/8 00 12 45
55/6 00 00 41
55/7 00 00 23
55/10 00 06 33
55/11 00 02 30
54/9 00 00 98
54/11 00 06 38
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6655
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा गुलिविदाड़ा 61/16 00 06 30
60/3 00 04 48
60/5 00 00 50
60/4 00 01 83
60/7 00 02 36
60/6 00 01 65
60/13 00 04 95
कोतावलासा देंदेरु 3/1 00 01 34
3/20 00 00 10
3/22 00 03 82
3/23 00 00 10
3/27 00 04 42
3/28 00 05 43
3/26 00 02 12
8/2 00 14 15
7/1 00 03 18
39/2 00 01 22
39/11 00 06 90
39/8 00 00 10
39/9 00 04 92
41/4 00 00 27
41/14 00 08 47
41/13 00 04 14
41/15 00 01 37
41/16 00 06 86
46 00 28 31
47/3 00 01 00
6656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| जिला:विजियानगरम राज्य: आँर्ध प्रदेश | |||||
| मंडल का नाम | र्गाम का नाम | सवᱷ नम्बर | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वगर्मीटर | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
कोतावलासा संतापालेम 16/1 00 50 99
16/2 00 34 09
15/3 00 00 39
19 00 39 35
20 00 26 46
25 00 29 88
24 00 31 32
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)252/2017-ओआर-I/ई-21033]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 6th December, 2018
S.O. 1758.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India No.36 Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 09.09.2017 vide S.O. Number 2102 dated 07.09.2017 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land situated in Mandals:Gurla, Garividi, Kothavalasa,Chipurupalle and Chipurupalli of VizianagaramDistrictin Andhra Pradesh State, specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha to Hyderabad in the State of Telangana by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Paradip–Hyderabad Pipeline Project".
And whereas the copies of the Gazette were made available to the public. And whereas the Competent Authority has under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his report of Central Government.
And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of the user therein;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user of the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vests on the date of publication of the declaration, in India Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
173/5 00 07 43
170/17 00 04 01
170/16 00 00 88
170/18 00 05 49
170/19 00 05 25
170/20 00 02 27
170/22 00 01 07
170/21 00 03 85
170/7 00 02 11
170/6 00 02 10
170/5 00 03 80
170/4 00 03 05
167/18 00 00 14
167/17 00 03 11
167/12 00 00 10
167/11 00 01 47
167/10 00 03 43
167/7 00 05 87
167/3 00 00 10
167/6 00 04 31
167/5 00 05 76
166/3 00 04 25
CHIPURUPALLE PEDANADIPALLE 95/3 00 09 45
95/2 00 03 24
95/1 00 27 85
86/2 00 30 43
87/10 00 01 05
87/11 00 00 73
87/9 00 06 87
87/13 00 01 00
87/14 00 03 40
87/15 00 03 30
87/16 00 04 31
87/17 00 04 45
87/18 00 00 72
53/1 00 00 36
53/9 00 03 94
53/11 00 15 53
53/10 00 05 42
6658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
55/10 00 07 30
55/9 00 00 10
56/1 00 00 60
56/2 00 14 44
56/3 00 02 70
57 00 02 70
69/1 00 06 04
69/2 00 14 47
69/3 00 03 42
69/5 00 03 04
69/6 00 03 69
69/9 00 01 53
71/6 00 08 11
71/3 00 08 50
72/2 00 13 72
72/1 00 02 43
72/4 00 11 53
72/8 00 00 10
72/7 00 08 68
73/6 00 02 91
73/5 00 09 94
73/4 00 10 17
73/3 00 01 99
CHIPURUPALLE CHINANADIPALLI 43/1 00 05 58
42/2 00 01 62
42/7 00 04 68
42/9 00 07 77
42/10 00 08 90
42/13 00 02 37
42/12 00 05 18
42/11 00 00 10
39 00 16 83
38/1 00 05 91
38/5 00 00 10
18/10 00 00 10
18/11 00 01 22
18/14 00 04 93
18/15 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6659
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
19/23 00 01 64
19/28 00 00 77
19/27 00 02 99
19/29 00 00 26
19/30 00 01 42
19/31 00 00 53
19/26 00 02 43
20/2 00 00 18
21/6 00 03 86
21/7 00 04 04
21/8 00 00 22
21/10 00 02 47
21/11 00 00 41
21/15 00 02 71
21/12 00 00 36
21/16 00 00 32
21/17 00 13 86
21/21 00 00 34
21/20 00 00 10
7/15 00 00 75
25/1 00 07 96
26/3 00 11 24
26/2 00 28 92
26/1 00 03 33
27/1 00 10 96
27/2 00 04 07
27/9 00 01 40
27/8 00 00 10
CHIPURUPALLI ITKARLAPALLI 168/18 00 09 28
168/22 00 00 13
168/23 00 03 66
168/30 00 01 45
168/31 00 00 10
168/27 00 03 99
168/26 00 00 88
168/28 00 00 60
168/24 00 03 61
168/25 00 00 10
6660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
166/14 00 01 39 166/13 00 02 89 166/15 00 00 81 166/16 00 05 93 166/4 00 00 10 166/3 00 02 45 166/2 00 01 51 166/17 00 01 58 166/1 00 00 22 166/18 00 04 10 165/14 00 02 07 165/15 00 02 64 165/16 00 02 19 165/17 00 02 30 165/6 00 07 09 165/5 00 02 32 165/18 00 00 10 165/19 00 04 34 165/20 00 04 40 165/22 00 01 24 164/24 00 06 61 164/21 00 03 17 164/20 00 02 88 164/19 00 03 04 164/18 00 03 08 164/16 00 08 04 156/26 00 16 66 156/23 00 03 63 156/22 00 01 32 156/25 00 05 19 156/13 00 06 94 156/12 00 15 08 156/11 00 00 50 155/45 00 04 33 155/23 00 02 19 155/17 00 03 27 155/16 00 02 05 155/14 00 01 62 154/7 00 00 32 154/6 00 02 54 154/5 00 03 77
153/20 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6661
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
153/18 00 02 50
153/17 00 02 24
153/16 00 02 71
152/3 00 11 94
150/13 00 07 19
150/6 00 11 04
150/7 00 01 82
177/3 00 06 19
177/2 00 16 64
177/1 00 07 88
178/1 00 03 90
176/3 00 11 17
176/2 00 07 61
176/1 00 22 51
147/3 00 34 43
CHIPURUPALLI POTAYYAVALASA 78/4 00 19 96
78/3 00 21 48
76/2 00 21 85
76/1 00 02 34
70/4 00 08 66
72/2 00 22 74
72/3 00 03 36
72/4 00 04 13
CHIPURUPALLE PARLA 154/15 00 29 21
155/6 00 01 65
163/2 00 04 50
162/23 00 00 77
162/22 00 00 43
162/19 00 00 67
162/18 00 00 95
161/17 00 01 48
161/16 00 03 05
162/14 00 01 26
162/13 00 00 81
161/9 00 01 45
162/10 00 00 86
162/9 00 01 11
161/8 00 00 77
161/5 00 02 55
6662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
160/21 00 00 97 160/14 00 00 79 160/15 00 02 25 160/9 00 01 19 160/10 00 01 11 160/5 00 01 83 160/3 00 00 53 160/4 00 02 78 100/28 00 00 91 100/26 00 00 92 184/2 00 03 83 184/1 00 03 78 185/15 00 02 00 185/16 00 03 05 185/13 00 00 32 185/12 00 04 98 185/11 00 05 96 185/4 00 03 07 185/3 00 00 93 185/2 00 00 82 185/1 00 01 08 189/18 00 00 50 186 00 06 59 189/12 00 05 75 188/2 00 02 86 188/5 00 00 38 188/7 00 00 65 188/8 00 00 48 188/9 00 00 77 188/1 00 05 42 189/11 00 00 86 191/17 00 05 08 191/16 00 00 64 191/14 00 01 55 191/13 00 02 29 191/12 00 01 15 191/3 00 08 02 192/19 00 02 17 192/8 00 04 37[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6663
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
192/2 00 00 88
192/13 00 01 71
192/1 00 01 94
193/3 00 00 16
193/2 00 00 96
193/1 00 00 64
78/15 00 00 10
GARIVIDI DUMMIDA 179/16 00 03 48
179/12 00 07 06
179/13 00 00 13
179/10 00 01 21
175/19 00 05 63
176/10 00 01 57
176/9 00 04 04
176/8 00 04 72
176/7 00 02 67
176/6 00 09 87
176/4 00 13 10
60 00 03 47
176/3 00 15 67
165/4 00 10 39
165/5 00 02 40
165/2 00 00 12
165/6 00 02 05
165/7 00 14 22
165/12 00 04 79
165/13 00 00 10
164/25 00 02 67
164/31 00 04 86
164/30 00 06 53
164/29 00 02 96
164/11 00 00 26
163/5 00 00 26
163/4 00 07 79
163/2 00 00 10
163/3 00 00 79
69/16 00 04 20
70/1 00 15 02
6664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
66/3 00 02 99 66/1 00 07 80 66/4 00 01 68 85/5 00 00 51 85/2 00 09 16 85/3 00 00 66 85/7 00 07 56 85/9 00 01 49 85/10 00 00 20 85/8 00 04 61 85/11 00 08 14 85/13 00 02 01 95/16 01 02 28 95/15 00 02 32 95/14 00 04 52 95/17 00 01 10 96/2 00 06 85 96/3 00 02 13 96/4 00 00 18 96/8 00 04 27 96/7 00 00 10 96/9 00 05 67 96/14 00 00 58 96/13 00 05 57 96/12 00 00 22 96/19 00 09 01 97/1 00 05 75 97/2 00 05 20 97/3 00 10 34 101/11 00 02 82 101/35 00 14 13 101/36 00 02 09 101/28 00 00 82 101/29 00 00 10 101/27 00 02 57 101/26 00 01 94 101/24 00 04 15 101/23 00 02 16 100/20 00 02 56 100/19 00 00 14 100/7 00 00 25 100/8 00 03 84 100/9 00 03 99[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6665
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
100/13 00 02 07
107/28 00 02 47
107/29 00 01 39
107/18 00 00 52
107/15 00 02 89
107/16 00 01 77
107/13 00 02 00
107/12 00 03 64
107/11 00 02 84
130/19 00 00 10
107/9 00 00 95
130/14 00 10 58
107/4 00 01 78
107/3 00 05 34
129/1 00 00 10
108 00 24 54
127/2 00 04 64
127/3 00 04 74
GURLA SADANANDAPURAM 73/8 00 00 88
73/5 00 01 10
GURLA NAGALLAVALASA 86/15 00 00 10
87/20 00 06 21
87/22 00 00 40
87/21 00 01 65
87/18 00 06 63
87/19 00 00 30
87/16 00 00 36
87/25 00 00 84
87/17 00 05 98
87/2 00 03 25
84/29 00 02 26
84/31 00 00 59
84/30 00 00 70
84/27 00 00 27
84/28 00 05 29
84/25 00 02 85
84/24 00 00 10
6666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
54/12 00 00 35 55/11 00 01 30 55/10 00 13 20 55/9 00 00 94 55/8 00 10 00 55/12 00 01 67 55/13 00 00 24 43 00 03 37 42/10 00 23 10 42/6 00 01 30 42/5 00 01 87 41/14 00 04 24 41/12 00 02 57 41/11 00 02 26 41/6 00 02 38 41/1 00 02 69 40/28 00 04 02 40/23 00 02 35 40/16 00 01 27 40/15 00 00 90 40/9 00 01 45 40/8 00 00 43 39/11 00 00 17 39/8 00 00 10 39/12 00 05 04 39/22 00 00 45 39/23 00 00 53 39/13 00 01 80 39/14 00 00 19 39/5 00 02 66 39/4 00 00 19 39/3 00 01 59 37/24 00 05 31 37/15 00 04 94 37/14 00 02 82 37/13 00 02 65 37/6 00 02 81 37/5 00 01 24 62/2 00 00 10 62/1 00 02 45 34/19 00 00 46 34/15 00 00 78 34/13 00 01 10 34/10 00 00 55 34/9 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6667
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
65/1 00 06 15
65/9 00 03 50
65/8 00 00 55
65/7 00 08 21
65/2 00 04 74
65/6 00 02 31
65/3 00 02 80
29/1 00 03 02
29/10 00 01 14
29/11 00 04 34
29/12 00 03 94
29/13 00 01 40
29/15 00 04 50
29/16 00 05 26
29/18 00 07 84
29/17 00 00 49
66/2 00 02 76
66/3 00 01 75
66/4 00 00 10
66/1 00 00 91
GURLA JAMMU 88/11 00 12 18
90/3 00 08 63
90/4 00 00 30
90/2 00 04 74
90/7 00 07 54
90/6 00 01 08
93/21 00 06 59
93/22 00 02 74
93/12 00 03 58
93/24 00 07 63
93/13 00 00 12
93/9 00 01 03
93/11 00 02 72
93/10 00 04 18
93/7 00 00 74
93/5 00 04 89
93/6 00 00 10
95/20 00 00 10
95/21 00 01 81
95/22 00 06 45
95/24 00 04 04
95/23 00 00 81
6668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
97/21 00 00 56 97/11 00 01 39 97/13 00 01 34 97/10 00 00 10 97/14 00 05 00 97/15 00 01 19 97/7 00 03 67 97/6 00 05 08 97/3 00 03 33 97/2 00 00 54 275/3 00 00 27 275/2 00 01 38 275/1 00 06 12 275/10 00 00 93 270/22 00 00 22 270/23 00 02 83 270/26 00 01 40 270/24 00 00 10 270/27 00 01 96 270/28 00 05 52 270/25 00 00 69 270/10 00 01 73 269/12 00 04 96 269/11 00 01 05 269/14 00 00 32 269/10 00 04 62 269/9 00 04 08 269/8 00 00 30 269/5 00 01 86 269/7 00 01 52 296/6 00 01 15 269/4 00 00 10 268/4 00 02 20 268/3 00 02 79 268/2 00 04 22 268/1 00 04 40 101/13 00 07 57 113/2 00 09 84 112/5 00 00 68[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6669
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
109/5 00 00 50 109/13 00 01 07 109/12 00 03 09 109/11 00 01 61 109/10 00 01 10 110/1 00 01 83 108/14 00 01 08 108/15 00 03 20 108/18 00 00 28 108/19 00 02 80 108/12 00 00 10 108/13 00 00 90 108/20 00 04 17 108/23 00 03 41 108/24 00 08 79 108/25 00 01 39 107/35 00 04 59 117/2 00 16 18 117/1 00 10 16 119/1 00 08 59 118/9 00 01 13 118/2 00 06 05 126/36 00 03 37 126/35 00 02 25 126/34 00 02 70 126/9 00 02 74 126/8 00 00 10 123/6 00 00 10 123/5 00 00 68 123/1 00 06 69 123/2 00 00 10 125 00 05 30 151/11 00 01 50 151/14 00 02 00 151/15 00 00 40 151/12 00 02 55 151/10 00 01 70 151/6 00 08 40 152/8 00 02 236670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
182/11 00 01 00 182/9 00 00 10 182/10 00 02 00 182/12 00 02 71 182/13 00 00 41 183/19 00 00 72 183/18 00 00 38 183/17 00 00 10 183/20 00 02 48 183/21 00 04 95 183/24 00 00 36 183/22 00 01 39 183/23 00 00 22 183/7 00 00 92 183/6 00 01 95 183/5 00 01 33 183/4 00 01 72 183/3 00 01 55 183/2 00 06 47 179/12 00 01 14 179/13 00 04 71 179/11 00 02 55 179/10 00 02 37 179/2 00 02 35 179/1 00 02 94 178/24 00 01 52 178/23 00 01 44 178/22 00 01 62 178/4 00 00 10 178/3 00 04 29 178/2 00 00 52 178/1 00 02 19 176/31 00 00 10 176/30 00 10 89 176/1 00 05 82 175/23 00 00 15 175/20 00 06 34 175/19 00 01 90 197/19 00 06 76[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6671
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
197/24 00 00 25
197/23 00 03 85
196/19 00 14 35
196/25 00 09 19
196/20 00 00 66
196/21 00 01 55
196/24 00 00 20
196/23 00 00 35
196/22 00 00 54
209/2 00 01 99
211/19 00 01 71
211/18 00 00 40
211/7 00 13 43
211/17 00 00 16
211/6 00 00 10
211/8 00 00 19
211/16 00 00 10
211/10 00 02 51
211/9 00 02 22
211/11 00 02 81
211/12 00 02 57
211/15 00 00 30
211/14 00 00 61
211/13 00 02 15
216/4 00 04 95
216/3 00 00 14
214/12 00 00 10
214/11 00 00 65
214/10 00 01 03
214/9 00 04 80
214/7 00 00 28
214/8 00 07 49
GURLA GARIDA 99/23 00 02 04
99/24 00 02 68
99/25 00 01 33
99/26 00 03 58
99/17 00 01 92
99/27 00 02 53
99/14 00 04 31 99/13 00 00 11 99/1 00 07 926672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
76/7 00 00 55 76/9 00 15 63 75/14 00 01 83 75/12 00 03 61 75/13 00 00 62 75/11 00 05 60 75/1 00 00 16 79/15 00 00 10 79/14 00 02 06 79/12 00 01 94 79/11 00 00 10 80/20 00 06 96 80/18 00 00 32 80/12 00 02 90 80/13 00 03 31 80/5 00 02 65 80/4 00 05 34 80/2 00 01 05 31/8 00 02 10 31/7 00 00 93 32/19 00 00 10 32/18 00 01 46 32/17 00 02 45 32/16 00 01 32 30/20 00 00 60 30/19 00 00 10 30/16 00 02 65 30/15 00 02 68 30/14 00 00 10 30/6 00 01 19 30/7 00 09 41 30/5 00 01 26 30/4 00 02 33 30/3 00 00 85 34/34 00 00 98 34/32 00 01 73 34/31 00 01 74 34/23 00 02 10 34/22 00 00 20 34/24 00 01 59 34/25 00 00 10 34/14 00 00 73 34/15 00 01 15[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6673
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
34/4 00 03 33 34/2 00 01 68 34/3 00 00 21 35/2 00 00 10 35/5 00 00 54 35/6 00 00 81 35/8 00 01 09 35/7 00 00 21 35/9 00 00 66 35/10 00 00 56 35/11 00 00 49 35/12 00 02 35 35/13 00 01 41 35/14 00 00 48 35/17 00 00 10 35/32 00 02 49 35/34 00 01 81 35/35 00 00 35 35/31 00 00 10 12/12 00 00 30 12/13 00 00 10 12/11 00 01 77 12/10 00 02 80 12/9 00 02 59 12/7 00 03 92 12/6 00 03 00 12/5 00 05 66 7/10 00 04 82 7/9 00 04 37 7/24 00 01 46 7/23 00 00 99 7/22 00 00 32 7/21 00 00 14 7/20 00 00 25 7/19 00 00 62 7/11 00 06 94 7/12 00 02 64 7/13 00 05 21 7/14 00 00 10
6/22 00 05 44 6/23 00 05 476674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
3/3 00 01 92
3/9 00 00 20
3/8 00 01 55
3/7 00 02 99
3/6 00 07 20
3/5 00 02 80
3/11 00 04 00
3/12 00 00 10
2/8 00 08 95
2/4 00 07 65
2/5 00 06 16
2/6 00 01 12
2/12 00 00 10
2/13 00 11 70
GURLA GORLAPETA_JAGANADHAPURAM 23/2 00 01 62
23/21 00 03 87
23/20 00 00 58
23/18 00 01 14
23/17 00 02 76
23/16 00 04 17
23/10 00 02 20
23/13 00 01 19
23/12 00 02 29
23/11 00 02 10
23/9 00 01 11
22/12 00 08 39
22/26 00 00 18
22/25 00 00 73
22/13 00 02 67
22/24 00 02 60
22/23 00 03 65
22/18 00 05 75
18/21 00 00 19
18/23 00 00 40
18/22 00 03 34
13/13 00 03 81
14/8 00 02 90
14/7 00 05 42
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6675
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
11/14 00 00 10
GURLA KELLA 34/1 00 03 30
33/2 00 30 05
7 00 41 17
8/18 00 02 52
8/21 00 19 06
8/25 00 08 32
8/24 00 00 87
8/20 00 06 85
8/19 00 00 29
13/23 00 00 20
13/22 00 08 90
13/21 00 00 57
13/20 00 04 87
13/17 00 09 30
13/16 00 03 39
13/15 00 05 38
13/1 00 04 38
13/2 00 00 10
347/20 00 05 56
346/2 00 07 69
346/1 00 00 45
346/3 00 11 01
346/4 00 11 90
346/7 00 00 65
346/6 00 01 72
346/5 00 06 57
346/8 00 01 20
14/10 00 06 47
14/9 00 00 10
GURLA GOSADA 24/16 00 00 10
24/17 00 08 46
24/18 00 04 21
24/20 00 00 86
24/19 00 06 71
24/8 00 02 96
24/9 00 04 49
6676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
21/6 00 02 00 21/1 00 04 91 20/12 00 03 88 20/10 00 04 42 20/9 00 01 37 20/5 00 03 39 19/2 00 05 61 19/1 00 13 54 19/4 00 00 56 16/1 00 07 51 16/5 00 03 28 16/3 00 06 70 16/4 00 00 10 15/6 00 05 30 15/5 00 01 83 15/3 00 00 15 15/8 00 07 34 15/9 00 04 40 15/15 00 00 25 15/14 00 01 49 15/12 00 00 89 57/5 00 03 16 57/6 00 03 40 57/7 00 03 56 57/10 00 01 50 57/12 00 04 04 57/9 00 01 27 57/13 00 05 05 57/14 00 00 29 64/2 00 01 28 64/5 00 05 23 64/8 00 05 46 65/1 00 10 72 65/2 00 11 90 66/3 00 04 68 66/2 00 00 10 66/4 00 02 67 66/5 00 04 73 66/6 00 04 15 66/17 00 00 90 66/16 00 04 67
68/8 00 03 93[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6677
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
68/4 00 03 53
68/3 00 06 31
68/5 00 00 39
68/6 00 00 92
69/1 00 01 79
GURLA KALAVACHERLA 60/6 00 00 46
60/7 00 01 87
60/8 00 02 83
60/11 00 02 42
60/9 00 01 13
60/3 00 00 17
60/10 00 01 22
62/4 00 00 10
62/5 00 02 82
62/6 00 01 46
62/7 00 00 95
62/8 00 03 56
62/9 00 01 85
29/14 00 03 99
29/15 00 04 53
29/13 00 00 81
29/12 00 00 55
29/11 00 00 54
29/16 00 02 83
29/17 00 00 10
29/10 00 02 71
29/32 00 00 10
29/9 00 02 55
29/8 00 04 96
29/3 00 04 22
29/33 00 00 10
29/2 00 02 68
29/1 00 02 94
30/21 00 00 60
30/20 00 01 00
30/19 00 01 04
30/18 00 01 71
30/14 00 00 38
30/17 00 02 91
30/16 00 03 14
30/3 00 01 546678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
28/1 00 04 22
32/8 00 02 90
32/7 00 00 23
32/9 00 01 54
32/10 00 01 94
32/11 00 02 24
32/12 00 00 10
32/6 00 02 77
32/5 00 00 45
32/3 00 02 79
32/2 00 04 43
34/14 00 00 59
34/10 00 00 58
34/9 00 02 38
34/8 00 01 36
34/7 00 01 60
34/2 00 02 06
34/1 00 04 34
37/7 00 05 21
37/4 00 05 61
37/9 00 00 30
37/10 00 00 35
37/11 00 00 44
37/2 00 00 10
37/3 00 04 34
37/12 00 04 24
38 00 03 55
39/6 00 00 47
39/7 00 02 24
39/5 00 08 87
39/8 00 00 10
39/3 00 00 29
39/10 00 06 27
39/11 00 02 64
39/13 00 00 54
39/12 00 04 73
2/10 00 00 36
1/3 00 20 37
2/6 00 03 85
2/7 00 05 89
GURLA KOTTA GANDREDU 92/3 00 10 90
86/1 00 00 42
63/8 00 03 62
63/9 00 00 31
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6679
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
64/21 00 01 49
64/20 00 04 57
64/15 00 15 90
64/5 00 00 39
64/3 00 02 62
64/2 00 00 26
65/5 00 08 61
48/16 00 12 10
48/17 00 03 74
48/3 00 00 69
48/1 00 05 73
31/30 00 04 32
31/23 00 06 01
31/12 00 01 80
31/11 00 03 52
31/25 00 00 17
31/9 00 00 12
31/10 00 01 09
31/4 00 01 91
31/3 00 01 28
31/2 00 00 10
34/4 00 03 09
34/5 00 00 97
34/6 00 03 01
34/3 00 02 59
34/2 00 02 76
34/1 00 10 80
GURLA ANANDAPURAM END BIT 194/2 00 07 78
194/3 00 00 83
194/4 00 00 68
194/5 00 00 81
194/6 00 01 48
194/1 00 03 35
195/5 00 00 67
195/4 00 00 82
195/3 00 00 34
195/6 00 01 32
195/7 00 02 51
195/11 00 00 47 6680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
197/14 00 47 77
197/13 00 01 32
197/6 00 03 09
197/9 00 01 33
197/7 00 04 24
197/5 00 00 32
197/8 00 03 15
197/1 00 11 74
198/2 00 00 10
200/4 00 18 00
200/3 00 07 54
200/1 00 02 23
199/12 00 00 17
199/9 00 17 00
184/1 00 28 78
184/6 00 01 07
KOTHAVALASA NARAPAM 10 00 01 93
8/1 00 18 47
4/3 00 08 70
5/10 00 00 93
5/16 00 07 37
5/19 00 00 10
91/1 00 08 28
91/2 00 07 29
KOTHAVALASA DEVADA 154/3 00 19 14
152/2 00 00 93
152/4 00 09 67
152/5 00 06 47
152/6 00 01 77
155/1 00 02 52
155/2 00 01 23
155/7 00 00 50
155/8 00 00 72
155/9 00 09 83
157/2 00 00 72
157/1 00 09 84
157/6 00 05 14
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6681
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
180/11 00 06 89
180/14 00 07 28
180/16 00 01 36
180/23 00 05 54
180/22 00 05 22
180/26 00 00 13
180/19 00 03 33
180/20 00 08 50
180/29 00 00 29
182/8 00 00 93
KOTHAVALASA VIRABHADRA PURAM 61/1 00 06 45
61/2 00 00 53
61/3 00 06 55
61/4 00 07 02
61/6 00 02 35
61/13 00 07 15
61/9 00 01 84
61/10 00 01 63
61/11 00 01 38
61/12 00 01 90
59/2 00 04 55
59/7 00 11 10
63/5 00 06 87
63/6 00 06 16
63/8 00 00 10
63/10 00 00 10
63/15 00 06 71
58/7 00 00 10
64/3 00 00 10
64/6 00 00 35
65/1 00 05 35
65/3 00 06 17
65/4 00 00 15
66/5 00 00 71
KOTHAVALASA SUNDARAYYA PETA 4/19 00 18 65
4/4 00 00 42
4/5 00 01 28
4/6 00 05 19
4/15 00 04 36 4/21 00 04 596682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
26/2 00 06 28 26/4 00 02 82 7/23 00 00 60 7/24 00 05 81 7/19 00 00 96 7/18 00 00 66 7/26 00 01 89 7/27 00 00 63 7/35 00 00 62 7/34 00 04 49 7/36 00 04 43 7/38 00 02 75 7/17 00 00 29 7/39 00 00 95 7/15 00 01 09 7/41 00 02 95 7/40 00 00 57 24/2 00 01 37 24/3 00 00 88 24/4 00 00 30 24/1 00 01 15 24/5 00 00 78 24/7 00 00 30 24/15 00 06 41 24/28 00 01 85 24/29 00 03 01 24/27 00 00 64 24/37 00 03 82 24/39 00 00 10 24/35 00 01 02 24/36 00 00 76 24/38 00 00 96 20/4 00 00 17 20/5 00 10 96 20/9 00 00 10 20/6 00 01 15 20/7 00 00 82 20/8 00 00 57 22/1 00 01 38[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6683
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
21/30 00 03 75
21/31 00 07 77
21/38 00 00 33
40/16 00 09 81
40/18 00 00 21
40/23 00 04 17
40/28 00 00 10
40/25 00 02 22
40/27 00 02 08
40/29 00 05 41
41/20 00 00 21
41/19 00 15 91
41/22 00 00 10
41/27 00 03 60
41/28 00 00 64
41/29 00 00 10
42/3 00 00 10
50/19 00 03 51
50/23 00 00 49
48/1 00 00 24
48/2 00 03 12
48/3 00 04 05
48/4 00 00 37
48/20 00 00 74
48/19 00 06 34
KOTHAVALASA CHIPURUVALASA 116 00 03 02
113/4 00 03 50
113/10 00 21 05
112/2 00 06 35
108/5 00 01 70
108/6 00 07 45
108/7 00 00 24
108/19 00 00 15
108/17 00 03 30
108/18 00 00 10
108/16 00 01 14
108/15 00 04 06
108/13 00 01 22
6684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
41/37 00 04 04 41/36 00 00 51 41/38 00 00 84 42/13 00 00 92 106/1 00 00 10 106/2 00 02 37 106/22 00 02 72 106/19 00 01 32 106/23 00 00 29 106/24 00 00 65 106/20 00 01 28 106/17 00 00 10 106/16 00 02 76 106/29 00 01 12 106/15 00 02 51 106/37 00 02 90 106/36 00 00 10 106/38 00 01 69 106/12 00 00 82 106/41 00 02 01 98/1 00 05 65 98/2 00 01 51 98/3 00 01 14 98/7 00 00 52 98/9 00 13 46 98/6 00 00 38 98/10 00 00 45 98/11 00 02 53 98/12 00 00 51 98/13 00 04 28 97/10 00 00 34 97/1 00 07 55 97/8 00 00 10 97/9 00 01 16 97/7 00 00 10 97/11 00 03 66 97/12 00 03 17 97/13 00 01 91 97/14 00 00 56
106/25 00 00 10
97/5 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6685
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
108/22 00 00 10
106/11 00 00 10
96/16 00 00 10
KOTHAVALASA GULIVINDADA 28/8 00 05 98
27/2 00 00 42
27/4 00 04 61
27/7 00 15 43
27/8 00 01 57
27/9 00 00 93
25/1 00 02 15
25/3 00 10 31
25/7 00 03 70
25/5 00 00 86
25/6 00 00 74
25/9 00 03 12
24/2 00 00 12
24/3 00 00 92
24/14 00 00 10
24/13 00 02 32
24/16 00 00 10
24/17 00 04 20
24/9 00 00 81
38/1 00 00 30
38/2 00 12 74
38/9 00 02 88
38/7 00 00 10
38/10 00 01 20
38/8 00 10 91
37/8 00 12 98
37/7 00 00 10
37/9 00 00 26
37/11 00 00 29
37/13 00 00 13
37/14 00 06 68
37/17 00 10 19
36/7 00 01 30
41/1 00 07 12
41/2 00 00 24
43/3 00 04 326686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
51/10 00 00 95
52/1 00 01 39
52/2 00 13 48
53/1 00 01 59
55/8 00 12 45
55/6 00 00 41
55/7 00 00 23
55/10 00 06 33
55/11 00 02 30
54/9 00 00 98
54/11 00 06 38
31/2 00 00 76
61/11 00 02 39
61/5 00 03 71
61/15 00 02 56
61/16 00 06 30
60/3 00 04 48
60/5 00 00 50
60/4 00 01 83
60/7 00 02 36
60/6 00 01 65
60/13 00 04 95
KOTTAVALASA DANDERU 3/1 00 01 34
3/20 00 00 10
3/22 00 03 82
3/23 00 00 10
3/27 00 04 42
3/28 00 05 43
3/26 00 02 12
8/2 00 14 15
7/1 00 03 18
39/2 00 01 22
39/11 00 06 90
39/8 00 00 10
39/9 00 04 92
41/4 00 00 27
41/14 00 08 47
41/13 00 04 14
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6687
| DISTRICT : VIZIANAGARAM STATE : ANDHRA PRADESH | |||||
| MANDAL | VILLAGE | SURVEY NO. | AREA | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq. Mt. | |||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
KOTHAVALASA SANTAPALEM 16/1 00 50 99
16/2 00 34 09
15/3 00 00 39
19 00 39 35
20 00 26 46
25 00 29 88
24 00 31 32
[F. No. R-11025(11)252/2017/OR-I/E-21033]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
शु(िcid:7373) – पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ.1759 .—पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइंस (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कें र्द सरकार पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना के का. आ. संख्या 186 दिनांक 30/01/2018, भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र संख्या 5, दिनांक 28/01/2018 से 03/02/2018 के भाग II, धारा 3, उप-धारा (ii) में 1087-1088 पृष्ठ पर प्रकाशित, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करता है अर्थात्: —
उक्त अधिसूचना में,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि हल्दीया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन पारियोजना के अन्तर्गत पेट्रोलियम पदाथ(cid:7299) के परिवहन हेतु प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य के हल्दीया रिफ़ाइनरी से बिहार राज्य के बरौनी रिफ़ाइनरी तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;" और
"र्शी बि(cid:7393)नाथ समाजदार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, (पाइपलाइन डिवीजन), 18" हल्दिया बरौनी प्रॉडक्ट पाइपलाइन, डाकघर – दुईल्या, आन्दुल – मौरी, मौरीर्गाम, हावड़ा -711302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल) "
संख्याओं और शब्दों के स्थान पर,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक कि कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना के तहत, प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया से बिहार राज्य में बरौनी तक, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए" और
"र्शी वि(cid:7393)नाथ समझदार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना, डाकघर – दुईल्या, आन्दुल – मौरी, मौरीर्गाम, हावड़ा -711302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल)" पढ़ा जाए।
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)22/2018-ओ.आर-I/ई-27779]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव6688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ERRATUM
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S.O.1759 .— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S. O. number 186 dated 30/01/2018, published at page 1090 in Part II, section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette of India No.5, dated 28/01/2018 to 03/02/2018, namely:-
In the said notification, for the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the state of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipeline Division, 18" Haldia Barauni Product Pipeline, P.O. Duilya, Andul-Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302( West Bengal)"
the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, P.O. Duilya, Andul-Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302 ( West Bengal)"
shall be substituted.
[F. No. R-11025(11)22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
शु(िcid:7373)-पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ.1760 .— पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइंस (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 कि उप-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कें र्द सरकार पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना के का. आ. संख्या 187 दिनांक 30/01/2018, भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र संख्या 5, दिनांक 28/01/2018 से 03/02/2018 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) में 1092 पृष्ठ पर प्रकाशित, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करता है अर्थात्: -
उक्त अधिसूचना में,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि हल्दीया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन पारियोजना के अन्तर्गत पेट्रोलियम पदाथ(cid:7299) के परिवहन हेतु प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य के हल्दीया रिफ़ाइनरी से बिहार राज्य के बरौनी रिफ़ाइनरी तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए; "और
"र्शी बि(cid:7393)नाथ समाजदार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, (पाइपलाइन डिवीजन), 18" हल्दिया बरौनी प्रॉडक्ट पाइपलाइन, डाकघर – दुईल्या, आन्दुल – मौरी, मौरीर्गाम, हावड़ा -711302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल) "
संख्याओं और शब्दों के स्थान पर,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक कि कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना के तहत, प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया से बिहार राज्य में बरौनी तक, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए" और
"र्शी वि(cid:7393)नाथ समझदार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना, डाकघर – दुईल्या, आन्दुल – मौरी, मौरीर्गाम, हावड़ा -711302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल)"
पढ़ा जाए।
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)22/2018-ओ.आर-I/ई-27779]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6689
ERRATUM
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S.O.1760 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S. O. number 187 dated 30/01/2018, published at page 1152 in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette of India No. 5, dated 28/01/2018 to 03/02/2018, namely:-
In the said notification, for the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the state of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipeline Division, 18" Haldia Barauni Product Pipeline, P.O. Duilya, Andul-Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302 (West Bengal)"
the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the state of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, P.O. Duilya, Andul-Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302 ( West Bengal)"
shall be substituted.
[F. No. R-11025(11)22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
शु(िcid:7373) – पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ.1761.—पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइंस (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 कि उप धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कें र्द सरकार पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना के का. आ. संख्या 184 दिनांक 30/01/2018, भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र संख्या 5, दिनांक 28/01/2018 से 03/02/2018 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) में 943 पृष्ठ पर प्रकाशित, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करता है अर्थात्: -
उक्त अधिसूचना में,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि हल्दीया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन पारियोजना के अन्तर्गत पेट्रोलियम पदाथ(cid:7299) के परिवहन हेतु प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य के हल्दीया रिफ़ाइनरी से बिहार राज्य के बरौनी रिफ़ाइनरी तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए; "और
"र्शी बि(cid:7393)नाथ समाजदार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, (पाइपलाइन डिवीजन), 18" हल्दिया बरौनी प्रॉडक्ट पाइपलाइन, डाकघर – दुईल्या, आन्दुल – मौरी, मौरीर्गाम, हावड़ा -711302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल) "
संख्याओं और शब्दों के स्थान पर,6690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] "के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक की कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना के तहत, प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया से बिहार राज्य में बरौनी तक, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए "और
"र्शी वि(cid:7393)नाथ समझदार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना, डाकघर – दुईल्या, आन्दुल – मौरी, मौरीर्गाम, हावड़ा -711302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल) "
पढ़ा जाए।
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)22/2018-ओ.आर-I/ई-27779]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
ERRATUM
New Delhi, 7th December, 2018
S.O.1761 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S. O. number 184 dated 30/01/2018, published at pages 996-997 in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette of India No.5, dated 28/01/2018 to 03/02/2018, namely:-
In the said notification, for the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the State of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipeline Division, 18" Haldia Barauni Product Pipeline, P.O. Duilya, Andul-Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302( West Bengal)"
the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the State of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, P.O. Duilya, Andul-Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302 ( West Bengal)"
shall be substituted.
[F. No. R-11025(11)22/2018-OR-I/E-27779]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
शु(िcid:7373) – पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ.1762.— पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइंस (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 कि उप धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कें र्द सरकार पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना के का. आ. संख्या 185 दिनांक 30/01/2018, भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र संख्या 5, दिनांक 28/01/2018 से 03/02/2018 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) में 1032 पृष्ठ पर प्रकाशित, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करता है, अर्थात्: -
उक्त अधिसूचना में,[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6691 "के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक है कि हल्दीया - बरौनी पाइपलाइन परियोजना के अन्तर्गत पेट्रोलियम पदाथ(cid:7299) के परिवहन हेतु प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य के हल्दीया रिफ़ाइनरी से बिहार राज्य के बरौनी रिफ़ाइनरी तक इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए; " और
"र्शी बि(cid:7393)नाथ समाजदार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, (पाइपलाइन डिवीजन), 18" हल्दिया बरौनी प्रॉडक्ट पाइपलाइन, डाकघर – दुईल्या, आन्दुल – मौरी, मौरीर्गाम, हावड़ा -711302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल) "
संख्याओं और शब्दों के स्थान पर,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक कि कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना के तहत, प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया से बिहार राज्य में बरौनी तक, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए " और
"र्शी वि(cid:7393)नाथ समझदार, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम सिस्टम्स, डाकघर – दुईल्या, आन्दुल – मौरी, मौरीर्गाम, हावड़ा -711302 (प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल)"
पढ़ा जाए।
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)22/2018-ओ.आर-I/ई-27779]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
ERRATUM
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S. O.1762 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S. O. number 185 dated 30/01/2018, published at page 1065 in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette of India No. 5, dated 28/01/2018 to 03/02/2018, namely:-
In the said notification, for the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the State of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipeline Division, 18" Haldia Barauni Product Pipeline, P.O. Duilya, Andul-Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302 (West Bengal)"
the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the State of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Biswanath Samajder, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, P.O. Duilya, Andul-Mouri, Mourigram, Howrah-711302 ( West Bengal)"
shall be substituted.
[F. No. R-11025(11)22/2018/OR-I/E-27779]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
6692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]शु(िcid:7373) – पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ.1763.—पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइंस (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 कि उप धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कें र्द सरकार पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना के का. आ. संख्या 2846 दिनांक 31/10/2017, भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र संख्या 51, दिनांक 17/12/2017 से 23/12/2017 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) में 9526 पृष्ठ पर प्रकाशित, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करता है अर्थात्: -
उक्त अधिसूचना में,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोक हित मे यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य के हलदिया रीफ़ीनेरी से बिहार राज्य के बरौनी तक इंडियन ऑइल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइप लाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;" और
"र्शी अजय सिह बड़ाईक (झा. प्र. से.) सक्षम प्राधिकारी, भूमि अर्जन अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑइल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, परदीप हल्दीया दुर्गापुर एल॰ पी॰ जी॰ पाइप लाइन आगमेटेंशन एवं 18" हल्दीया – बरौनी प्रॉडक्ट पाइप लाइन परियोजना, देवघर पैलस, तीसरा तल, वी॰ आई॰ पी॰ चौक देवघर – 814112 (झारखंड) "।
संख्याओं और शब्दों के स्थान पर,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोक हित में यह आवश्यक कि कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना के तहत, प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया से बिहार राज्य में बरौनी तक, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए " और
"र्शी अजय सिह बड़ाईक (झा. प्र. से.), सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम प्रोजेक्ट, देवघर पैलेस, तीसरा तल, वी॰आई॰पी चौक, देवघर -814112 (झारखंड)" ।
पढ़ा जाए।
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)21/2018-ओ.आर-I/ई-27764]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
ERRATUM
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S.O.1763 .— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S. O. number 2846 dated 31/10/17, published at page 9571 in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette of India No. 51, dated 17/12/17 to 23/12/17, namely:-
In the said notification, for the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the State of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Ajay Singh Baraik, JAS, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipeline Division, Augmentation of Paradip Haldia Durgapur LPG Pipeline, And 18" Haldia Barauni Product Pipeline Projects, Pipeline, "Deoghar Palace",3rd Floor ,VIP Chowk, Deoghar-814112 (Jharkhand)".
the numbers and words,[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6693 "Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the State of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Ajay Singh Baraik, JAS, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, Deoghar Palace, 3rd Floor , VIP Chowk,Deoghar-814112 (Jharkhand)"
shall be substituted.
[F. No. R-11025(11)21/2018/OR-I/E-27764]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
शु(िcid:7373)–पत्र
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ.1764.—पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइंस (भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 कि उप धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कें र्द सरकार पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृ तिक गैस मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना के का. आ. संख्या 2845 दिनांक 31/10/2017, भारत के साप्ताहिक राजपत्र संख्या 51, दिनांक 17/12/2017 से 23/12/2017 के भाग II, धारा 3, उपधारा (ii) में 9426 पृष्ठ पर प्रकाशित, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करता है अर्थात्: -
उक्त अधिसूचना में,
" के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित मे यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य के हलदिया रीफ़ीनेरी से बिहार राज्य के बरौनी तक इंडियन ऑइल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइप लाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;" और
"र्शी अजय सिह बड़ाईक (झा. प्र. से.) सक्षम प्राधिकारी, भूमि अर्जन अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑइल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, परदीप हल्दीया दुर्गापुर एल॰ पी॰ जी॰ पाइप लाइन आगमेटेंशन एवं 18" हल्दीया – बरौनी प्रॉडक्ट पाइप लाइन परियोजना, देवघर पैलस, तीसरा तल, वी॰ आई॰ पी॰ चौक देवघर – 814112 (झारखंड) "।
संख्याओं और शब्दों के स्थान पर,
"के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक कि कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए एक पाइपलाइन, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम्स परियोजना के तहत, प(िcid:7391)म बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया से बिहार राज्य में बरौनी तक, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए " और
"र्शी अजय सिह बड़ाईक (झा॰ प्र॰ से॰), सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड, हल्दिया-बरौनी पाइपलाइन सिस्टम प्रोजेक्ट, देवघर पैलेस, तीसरा तल, वी. आई. पी. चौक, देवघर -814112 (झारखंड)" ।
पढ़ा जाए।
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)21/2018-ओ.आर-I/ई-27764]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव6694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ERRATUM
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S.O.1764 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S.O. number 2845 dated 31/10/17, published at page 9487 in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the weekly Gazette of India No. 51, dated 17/12/17 to 23/12/17, namely:-
In the said notification, for the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Haldia Refinery in the State of West Bengal to Barauni Refinery in the State of Bihar a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Ajay Singh Baraik, JAS, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipeline Division, Augmentation of Paradip Haldia Durgapur LPG Pipeline, And 18" Haldia Barauni Product Pipeline Projects, Pipeline, "Deoghar Palace",3rd Floor ,VIP Chowk,Deoghar-814112 (Jharkhand)".
the numbers and words,
"Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil, a pipeline from Haldia in the State of West Bengal to Barauni in the State of Bihar under Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited" and
"Shri Ajay Singh Baraik , JAS, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Haldia-Barauni Pipeline Systems Project, Deoghar Palace, 3rd Floor ,VIP Chowk, Deoghar-814112 (Jharkhand)" .
shall be substituted.
[F. No. R-11025(11)21/2018/OR-I/E-27764]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ.1765.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टूण्डला टमिनल से कानपुर टमिनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयलकाप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची मे वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियो का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है, उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टूण्डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना, ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6695अनुसूची
तह्सील – ताखा जिला – इटावा राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1. आढरपुर 229 00 00 38
227 00 23 13
219 00 04 14
218 00 08 94
214 00 01 67
215 00 04 97
210 00 02 55
209 00 06 57
208 00 05 13
195 00 05 56
201 00 12 02
200 00 00 87
199 00 02 16
202 00 02 41
259 00 03 16
260 00 01 66
258 00 44 99
264 00 01 86
265 00 08 36
269 00 08 11
268 00 01 69
270 00 07 95
6696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
आढरपुर 285 00 09 49
276 00 07 82
284 00 34 89
283 00 01 94
282 00 12 48
401 00 23 11
446 00 15 87
453 00 00 10
447 00 00 10
451 00 00 92
452 00 08 88
459 00 14 24
457 00 01 54
458 00 02 33
460 00 01 78
471 00 02 36
472 00 00 10
473 00 08 96
474 00 10 03
477 00 10 81
478 00 06 67
482 00 06 89
483 00 03 84
485 00 13 35
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6697
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
रौरा 1092 00 05 78
1090 00 00 28
1091 00 00 28
1089 00 14 25
1082 00 00 25
1083 00 16 54
1084 00 00 53
1079 00 00 37
1080 00 03 67
1075 00 17 33
1055 00 13 58
1054 00 08 58
1053 00 00 22
1042 00 01 91
1041 00 00 50
1040 00 00 21
1045 00 07 91
1038 00 12 64
1018 00 04 64
1014 00 20 81
1015 00 00 58
1003 00 00 36
997 00 00 10
1000 00 01 17
6698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
रौरा 972 00 08 99
971 00 12 41
970 00 06 28
969 00 06 52
968 00 13 50
967 00 02 25
943 00 01 50
942 00 15 74
941 00 00 37
923 00 21 88
921 00 06 97
920 00 12 92
1469 00 01 17
1471 00 16 15
1556 00 03 42
1554 00 16 00
1557 00 04 02
1553 00 11 11
1558 00 06 30
1552 00 00 99
1598 00 05 26
1599 00 22 61
1600 00 00 27
1601 00 25 39
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6699
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
रौरा (जारी) 1584 00 07 21
1583 00 01 12
1581 00 03 21
1582 00 02 15
1579 00 10 61
1580 00 00 39
1639 00 06 93
1640 00 07 22
1642 00 08 36
1643 00 13 21
1772 00 15 51
1777 00 09 84
1771 00 00 16
1769 00 00 10
1766 00 00 10
1778 00 00 10
1765 00 03 02
1780 00 05 72
1763 00 01 06
2084 00 05 07
2159 00 20 93
2157 00 00 17
2156 00 03 91
2125 00 15 76
6700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
रौरा 2102 00 00 10
2101 00 16 37
2131 00 00 36
3. ककराही 414 00 00 88
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओ.आर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1765.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra (U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Takha District :- Etawah
State :- Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
227 00 23 13 219 00 04 14 218 00 08 94 214 00 01 67 215 00 04 97 210 00 02 55[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6701
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
200 00 00 87 199 00 02 16 202 00 02 41 259 00 03 16 260 00 01 66 258 00 44 99 264 00 01 86 265 00 08 36 269 00 08 11 268 00 01 69 270 00 07 95 271 00 04 77 273 00 11 15 285 00 09 49 276 00 07 82 284 00 34 89 283 00 01 94 282 00 12 48 401 00 23 11 446 00 15 87 453 00 00 10 447 00 00 10 451 00 00 92 452 00 08 88 459 00 14 24 457 00 01 54 458 00 02 33 460 00 01 78 471 00 02 366702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
478 00 06 67
482 00 06 89
483 00 03 84
485 00 13 35
487 00 01 04
2. Raura 1094 00 02 18
1093 00 02 50
1092 00 05 78
1090 00 00 28
1091 00 00 28
1089 00 14 25
1082 00 00 25
1083 00 16 54
1084 00 00 53
1079 00 00 37
1080 00 03 67
1075 00 17 33
1055 00 13 58
1054 00 08 58
1053 00 00 22
1042 00 01 91
1041 00 00 50
1040 00 00 21
1045 00 07 91
1038 00 12 64
1018 00 04 64
1014 00 20 81
1015 00 00 58
997 00 00 10 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6703
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
996 00 04 20 973 00 00 23 972 00 08 99 971 00 12 41 970 00 06 28 969 00 06 52 968 00 13 50 967 00 02 25 943 00 01 50 942 00 15 74 941 00 00 37 923 00 21 88 921 00 06 97 920 00 12 92 1469 00 01 17 1471 00 16 15 1556 00 03 42 1554 00 16 00 1557 00 04 02 1553 00 11 11 1558 00 06 30 1552 00 00 99 1598 00 05 26 1599 00 22 61 1600 00 00 27 1601 00 25 39 1588 00 00 57 1589 00 00 10 1585 00 00 106704 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1582 00 02 15
1579 00 10 61
1580 00 00 39
1639 00 06 93
1640 00 07 22
1642 00 08 36
1643 00 13 21
1772 00 15 51
1777 00 09 84
1771 00 00 16
1769 00 00 10
1766 00 00 10
1778 00 00 10
1765 00 03 02
1780 00 05 72
1763 00 01 06
2084 00 05 07
2159 00 20 93
2157 00 00 17
2156 00 03 91
2125 00 15 76
2127 00 45 85
2146 00 00 89
2103 00 00 57
2102 00 00 10
2101 00 16 37
2131 00 00 36
3. Kakrahi 414 00 00 88
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018/OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6705नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1766.— के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टूण्डला टमिनल से कानपुर टमिनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची में वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है , उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टूण्डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना, ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची
तहसील – भरथना जिला – इटावा राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
1. नगला बहादुरपुर 132 00 04 06
134 00 01 76
142 00 15 18
133 00 00 49
141 00 05 28
143 00 03 66
144 00 00 20
151 00 00 82
153 00 00 44
166 00 01 99
165 00 03 27
167 00 00 17
नगला बहादुरपुर 169 00 00 24
161 00 04 046706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
160 00 05 82
159 00 24 03
158 00 00 10
388 00 02 95
387 00 07 08
384 00 00 51
383 00 15 02
395 00 18 54
407 00 00 10
405 00 00 10
408 00 00 60
410 00 00 10
406 00 00 20
396 00 00 49
401 00 02 99
403 00 13 18
404 00 05 73
412 00 00 61
413 00 07 40
414 00 00 24
417 00 01 94
425 00 00 84
423 00 02 61
419 00 04 23
नगला बहादुरपुर 420 00 04 55
422 00 10 38
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6707
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
1406 00 06 81
1407 00 01 40
1411 00 11 33
1412 00 03 90
1417 00 06 05
1419 00 00 37
1424 00 08 61
1432 00 01 17
1431 00 07 29
1429 00 00 21
1430 00 09 96
1459 00 00 36
1453 00 27 40
1454 00 03 59
1455 00 03 64
1477 00 03 43
1476 00 03 77
1475 00 05 49
1482 00 01 36
1485 00 10 90
1515 00 00 72
1514 00 07 45
सैफी 1512 00 04 98
1511 00 05 99
1510 00 07 85
1501 00 17 55
6708 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
1542 00 00 38
1540 00 00 24
1544 00 16 76
1564 00 00 77
1543 00 01 71
1563 00 01 41
1497 00 02 91
1562 00 00 18
1566 00 07 47
1567 00 03 47
1560 00 00 36
1559 00 02 65
1570 00 01 99
1576 00 00 11
1571 00 01 93
1575 00 02 72
1573 00 03 24
1574 00 00 50
1583 00 06 71
1585 00 06 30
सैफी 1584 00 00 10
1590 00 01 46
1589 00 07 92
1593 00 01 93
1594 00 02 24
3. नगला बुटहर 155 00 02 88
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6709
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
152 00 00 10
4. अदलीपुर 300 00 28 06
299 00 00 70
306 00 00 40
309 00 00 10
294 00 01 59
307 00 15 25
308 00 00 19
314 00 00 10
291 00 00 10
292 00 03 31
293 00 09 07
164 00 04 74
74 00 15 83
73 00 00 33
67 00 00 29
160 00 00 61
77 00 30 13
अदलीपुर 78 00 00 15
108 00 22 53
109 00 00 39
114 00 27 54
115 00 06 75
113 00 01 30
148 00 00 36
5. गंसरा 123 00 04 29
130 00 03 016710 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
131 00 03 39
132 00 06 74
116 00 00 10
117 00 02 22
133 00 06 32
134 00 05 51
135 00 20 19
136 00 10 30
115 00 07 12
137 00 20 11
139 00 13 50
145 00 00 34
146 00 14 98
149 00 01 12
151 00 00 10
160 00 12 22
गंसरा 159 00 11 26
152 00 00 60
156 00 00 87
153 00 07 96
154 00 07 20
438 00 12 07
439 00 02 32
434 00 00 10
433 00 00 33
440 00 03 70
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6711
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
669 00 00 38
649 00 10 52
648 00 05 24
647 00 04 22
646 00 02 04
645 00 03 16
644 00 07 92
643 00 05 57
695 00 00 11
694 00 16 81
697 00 09 36
696 00 00 19
699 00 00 43
1360 00 07 38
गंसरा 1359 00 08 40
1358 00 00 69
1339 00 00 10
1342 00 04 47
1340 00 00 24
1341 00 00 37
1335 00 12 93
1334 00 00 82
1337 00 00 10
1336 00 04 38
1308 00 07 21
1307 00 00 63
6712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
1495 00 04 23
1498 00 07 28
1507 00 12 69
1508 00 00 34
1516 00 00 32
1528 00 06 58
1529 00 06 26
1525 00 00 17
1533 00 02 25
1535 00 00 10
1524 00 02 77
1523 00 02 41
गंसरा 1542 00 13 81
1558 00 00 36
1559 00 23 59
1557 00 00 39
1561 00 03 15
1555 00 00 10
1821 00 27 44
1820 00 01 53
1822 00 06 90
1857 00 11 06
1848 00 05 31
1847 00 05 39
1846 00 00 82
1845 00 17 82
1925 00 20 61 1926 00 00 61[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6713
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
1927 00 00 77
1930 00 22 52
1973 00 01 66
1931 00 00 10
1922 00 00 39
1921 00 00 73
1920 00 22 19
1919 00 06 52
1974 00 09 66
1975 00 00 41
गंसरा 1977 00 03 28
1976 00 11 18
1978 00 04 21
1980 00 03 90
1981 00 01 88
1979 00 01 85
1981 00 01 02
1985 00 00 50
6. ढकपुरा 3699 00 15 84
3700 00 06 13
3708 00 04 72
3707 00 15 99
3744 00 38 00
3706 00 02 74
3745 00 18 46
3748 00 15 74
6714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर |
4089 00 04 33
4090 00 04 08
4091 00 07 05
4093 00 05 45
4094 00 40 29
4120 00 30 14
4123 00 00 33
4126 00 05 68
ढकपुरा 4128 00 04 63
4129 00 05 34
4131 00 00 28
4132 00 08 06
4133 00 08 85
4135 00 07 39
4136 00 07 23
4137 00 09 62
4138 00 29 26
4140 00 25 33
4139 00 01 68
4165 00 02 31
4166 00 03 21
4168 00 15 39
4167 00 12 58
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओ.आर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 11h December, 2018
S.O. 1766.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by Indian Oil[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6715 Corporation Limited. And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160, 1st & 2nd Floor, Kamlanagar, Agra (U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil: Bharthana District: Etawah State : Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1. Nagla Bahadurpur 132 00 04 06
134 00 01 76
142 00 15 18
133 00 00 49
141 00 05 28
143 00 03 66
144 00 00 20
151 00 00 82
153 00 00 44
166 00 01 99
165 00 03 27
167 00 00 17
169 00 00 24
170 00 12 68
161 00 04 04
160 00 05 82
159 00 24 03
158 00 00 10
388 00 02 95
384 00 00 51 6716 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
395 00 18 54
407 00 00 10
405 00 00 10
408 00 00 60
410 00 00 10
406 00 00 20
396 00 00 49
Nagla Bahadurpur 401 00 02 99
403 00 13 18
404 00 05 73
412 00 00 61
413 00 07 40
414 00 00 24
417 00 01 94
425 00 00 84
423 00 02 61
419 00 04 23
420 00 04 55
422 00 10 38
1400 00 00 28
2. Saiphi
1397 00 00 10 1405 00 05 06 1406 00 06 81 1407 00 01 40 1411 00 11 33 1412 00 03 90 1417 00 06 05[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6717
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1429 00 00 21
1430 00 09 96
1459 00 00 36
1453 00 27 40
1454 00 03 59
1455 00 03 64
1477 00 03 43
Saiphi 1476 00 03 77
1475 00 05 49
1482 00 01 36
1485 00 10 90
1515 00 00 72
1514 00 07 45
1512 00 04 98
1511 00 05 99
1510 00 07 85
1501 00 17 55
1500 00 11 02
1499 00 00 33
1539 00 17 37
1542 00 00 38
1540 00 00 24
1544 00 16 76
1564 00 00 77
1543 00 01 71
1563 00 01 41
1497 00 02 91
1562 00 00 18
6718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1559 00 02 65
1570 00 01 99
1576 00 00 11
1571 00 01 93
1575 00 02 72
1573 00 03 24
1574 00 00 50
Saiphi 1583 00 06 71
1585 00 06 30
1584 00 00 10
1590 00 01 46
1589 00 07 92
1593 00 01 93
1594 00 02 24
3. Nagla Buther 155 00 02 88
157 00 4 55
156 00 02 51
153 00 00 10
152 00 00 10
4. Adlipur 300 00 28 06
299 00 00 70
306 00 00 40
309 00 00 10
294 00 01 59
307 00 15 25
308 00 00 19
314 00 00 10
291 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6719
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
293 00 09 07
164 00 04 74
74 00 15 83
73 00 00 33
67 00 00 29
160 00 00 61
77 00 30 13
Adlipur 78 00 00 15
108 00 22 53
109 00 00 39
114 00 27 54
115 00 06 75
113 00 01 30
148 00 00 36
5. Gansara 123 00 04 29
126 00 07 33
129 00 10 65
130 00 03 01
131 00 03 39
132 00 06 74
116 00 00 10
117 00 02 22
133 00 06 32
134 00 05 51
135 00 20 19
136 00 10 30
115 00 07 12
6720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
149 00 01 12
151 00 00 10
160 00 12 22
159 00 11 26
152 00 00 60
156 00 00 87
153 00 07 96
Gansara 154 00 07 20
438 00 12 07
439 00 02 32
434 00 00 10
433 00 00 33
440 00 03 70
651 00 01 49
656 00 18 94
663 00 00 10
669 00 00 38
649 00 10 52
648 00 05 24
647 00 04 22
646 00 02 04
645 00 03 16
644 00 07 92
643 00 05 57
695 00 00 11
694 00 16 81
697 00 09 36
696 00 00 19
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6721
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1358 00 00 69
1339 00 00 10
1342 00 04 47
1340 00 00 24
1341 00 00 37
1335 00 12 93
1334 00 00 82
Gansara 1337 00 00 10
1336 00 04 38
1308 00 07 21
1307 00 00 63
1309 00 00 68
1305 00 01 42
1494 00 00 11
1495 00 04 23
1498 00 07 28
1507 00 12 69
1508 00 00 34
1516 00 00 32
1528 00 06 58
1529 00 06 26
1525 00 00 17
1533 00 02 25
1535 00 00 10
1524 00 02 77
1523 00 02 41
1542 00 13 81
1558 00 00 36
6722 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1555 00 00 10
1821 00 27 44
1820 00 01 53
1822 00 06 90
1857 00 11 06
1848 00 05 31
1847 00 05 39
Gansara 1846 00 00 82
1845 00 17 82
1839 00 18 03
1925 00 20 61
1926 00 00 61
1927 00 00 77
1930 00 22 52
1973 00 01 66
1931 00 00 10
1922 00 00 39
1921 00 00 73
1920 00 22 19
1919 00 06 52
1974 00 09 66
1975 00 00 41
1977 00 03 28
1976 00 11 18
1978 00 04 21
1980 00 03 90
1981 00 01 88
1979 00 01 85
1985 00 00 50 6. Dhakpura 3699 00 15 84[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6723
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3700 00 06 13
3708 00 04 72
3707 00 15 99
3744 00 38 00
3706 00 02 74
3745 00 18 46
3748 00 15 74
Dhakpura 3749 00 38 03
3752 00 07 27
4088 00 08 42
4089 00 04 33
4090 00 04 08
4091 00 07 05
4093 00 05 45
4094 00 40 29
4120 00 30 14
4123 00 00 33
4126 00 05 68
4128 00 04 63
4129 00 05 34
4131 00 00 28
4132 00 08 06
4133 00 08 85
4135 00 07 39
4136 00 07 23
4137 00 09 62
4138 00 29 26
4140 00 25 33
6724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
4168 00 15 39 4167 00 12 58
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018/OR-I/E-27895]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1767.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टूण्डला टमिनल से कानपुर टमिनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची मे वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियो का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है , उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टूण्डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना,ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची
तहसील – सिरसागंज
जिला – फिरोजाबाद राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1 रुधैनी 276 00 27 29 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6725
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
282 00 06 73
285 00 00 41
272 00 00 46
283 00 09 20
284 00 10 50
289 00 00 56
291 00 00 10
292 00 21 60
328 00 00 45
रुधैनी 330 00 10 93
331 00 09 31
333 00 29 34
334 00 12 84
348 00 03 06
349 00 00 10
507 00 07 63
508 00 03 15
506 00 23 40
505 00 24 92
537 00 05 94
558 00 02 60
493 00 00 42
559 00 15 32
6726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
561 00 04 59
572 00 08 61
571 00 10 01
562 00 21 18
563 00 04 51
564 00 00 10
992 00 12 16
993 00 06 58
991 00 01 98
रुधैनी 995 00 17 95
996 00 07 78
1007 00 31 15
997 00 06 21
1005 00 05 82
1008 00 02 62
1011 00 09 98
1009 00 05 02
1010 00 03 92
1012 00 28 64
1014 00 04 35
2. भदेसरा 511 00 00 10
493 00 23 59
494 00 09 86
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6727
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
481 00 03 02
480 00 03 11
474 00 00 10
475 00 10 02
478 00 10 56
477 00 00 10
454 00 24 25
457 00 00 10
455 00 09 10
भदेसरा 456 00 00 43
338 00 02 31
449 00 08 60
450 00 06 81
451 00 00 20
342 00 13 56
349 00 12 29
341 00 03 52
351 00 22 79
352 00 12 25
355 00 31 26
393 00 00 37
357 00 11 25
356 00 00 10
6728 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
360 00 03 69
362 00 10 03
367 00 27 27
273 00 02 05
3. कवीरपुर 557 00 27 90
558 00 19 12
562 00 00 10
597 00 00 96
563 00 11 74
कवीरपुर 587 00 00 54
586 00 06 74
588 00 00 58
590 00 13 51
536 00 05 44
541 00 02 84
540 00 06 61
539 00 09 24
537 00 04 07
538 00 11 67
539 00 02 50
706 00 02 78
707 00 01 02
708 00 01 00
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6729
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
712 00 00 86
699 00 08 42
700 00 12 85
704 00 12 30
703 00 01 66
719 00 00 33
4. कीठौत 176 00 19 52
178 00 33 21
479 00 09 48
कीठौत 478 00 01 33
477 00 10 34
467 00 09 41
466 00 10 87
457 00 06 46
436 00 18 65
434 00 00 10
437 00 02 41
426 00 09 95
427 00 05 50
428 00 06 83
429 00 03 61
423 00 09 10
424 00 02 80
6730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
419 00 02 24
417 00 00 10
418 00 09 08
415 00 01 56
414 00 03 51
413 00 03 06
412 00 22 67
379 00 07 67
380 00 04 06
कीठौत 381 00 02 30
390 00 05 09
383 00 01 63
389 00 02 12
385 00 05 37
388 00 08 10
386 00 00 23
387 00 06 54
369 00 00 21
367 00 00 15
368 00 15 33
365 00 01 40
370 00 01 45
588 00 05 44
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6731
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
5. करहरा 486 00 22 33
487 00 06 30
488 00 05 55
508 00 40 36
509 00 07 82
510 00 35 14
676 00 13 90
679 00 28 57
690 00 07 10
करहरा 689 00 00 32
693 00 10 12
695 00 05 49
697 00 02 72
701 00 25 30
700 00 19 95
733 00 29 33
728 00 01 54
727 00 04 79
6. सूरजपुर सोथरा 50 00 03 14
41 00 26 43
49 00 12 09
48 00 01 95
47 00 05 09
55 00 03 676732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
53 00 11 50
56 00 00 10
57 00 01 87
58 00 16 66
141 00 50 50
140 00 06 62
142 00 04 33
143 00 05 62
144 00 00 85
7. स(cid:7277)गेमई 78 00 05 38
81 00 11 65
80 00 30 84
82 00 19 87
236 00 10 65
237 00 23 51
8. सोथरा 627 00 01 31
637 00 06 08
638 00 02 62
642 00 00 10
644 00 08 38
643 00 01 28
645 00 08 94
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6733
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
656 00 12 05
649 00 00 10
651 00 01 93
655 00 07 60
9. अकबरपुर सराय 291 00 07 31
292 00 05 14
293 00 04 97
294 00 02 27
295 00 01 62
अकबरपुर सराय 296 00 18 62
454 00 00 10
455 00 17 62
427 00 12 12
428 00 02 92
425 00 03 08
423 00 01 98
424 00 11 74
429 00 09 11
430 00 05 94
307 00 00 38
308 00 14 98
309 00 07 76
311 00 07 20
6734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
310 00 01 12
407 00 20 15
339 00 00 36
338 00 00 10
341 00 00 18
342 00 01 90
340 00 00 79
344 00 01 12
343 00 13 31
अकबरपुर सराय 346 00 00 36
347 00 05 93
350 00 01 32
348 00 03 79
349 00 04 31
357 00 00 36
363 00 04 05
362 00 08 58
370 00 00 36
372 00 07 42
374 00 00 37
376 00 11 40
375 00 03 66
378 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6735
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
396 00 00 36
397 00 09 63
10. शेरपुर अफजलपुर 360 00 06 13
361 00 05 98
362 00 05 52
359 00 02 00
363 00 02 33
364 00 00 18
357 00 10 00
रपुर अफजलपुर 375 00 09 55
376 00 05 51
377 00 16 99
379 00 00 45
335 00 00 10
380 00 00 52
381 00 01 99
334 00 02 75
333 00 12 90
384/1015 00 00 36
397 00 22 99
396 00 10 37
393 00 06 41
392 00 15 76
6736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
503 00 12 86
502 00 19 16
502/1029 00 05 51
504 00 02 10
509 00 01 70
510 00 18 24
11. बहादुरपुर 187 00 02 24
191 00 24 36
189 00 01 10
बहादुरपुर 196 00 00 58
198 00 16 09
199 00 01 31
200 00 00 58
204 00 03 01
205 00 00 10
212 00 00 45
213 00 15 85
215 00 00 10
177 00 02 89
149 00 00 10
148 00 01 04
147 00 00 10
146 00 09 86
216 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6737
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
144 00 02 45
140 00 11 02
328 00 14 60
135 00 00 10
329 00 05 44
330 00 00 74
331 00 01 40
332 00 01 45
342 00 28 11
बहादुरपुर 374 00 00 40
340 00 06 93
378 00 02 13
382 00 14 26
484 00 21 65
485 00 09 71
488 00 10 63
489 00 00 56
491 00 05 04
520 00 01 66
523 00 15 89
522 00 02 71
522/1421 00 00 69
518 00 08 53
517 00 03 80
6738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | खसरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
544 00 11 11
545 00 11 23
839 00 00 62
864 00 09 07
863 00 08 72
862 00 00 48
865 00 06 47
870 00 00 55
873 00 07 03
बहादुरपुर 872 00 11 41
879 00 00 57
882 00 03 67
883 00 03 99
884 00 04 06
886 00 06 22
887 00 05 66
888 00 06 01
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1767.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6739 Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Sirsaganj District:- Firozabad State :- Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
273 00 02 53
282 00 06 73
285 00 00 41
272 00 00 46
283 00 09 20
284 00 10 50
Rudhaini 289 00 00 56
291 00 00 10
292 00 21 60
328 00 00 45
330 00 10 93
331 00 09 31
333 00 29 34
334 00 12 84
348 00 03 06
349 00 00 10
507 00 07 63
508 00 03 15
506 00 23 40
505 00 24 92
537 00 05 94
558 00 02 60
493 00 00 42
559 00 15 32
573 00 13 79
560 00 00 93
561 00 04 59
572 00 08 61
571 00 10 01
562 00 21 18
563 00 04 51
564 00 00 10
993 00 06 58 6740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
996 00 07 78
1007 00 31 15
997 00 06 21
1005 00 05 82
1008 00 02 62
1011 00 09 98
1009 00 05 02
1010 00 03 92
1012 00 28 64
1014 00 04 35
2. Bhadesara 511 00 00 10
493 00 23 59
494 00 09 86
495 00 19 05
498 00 22 42
481 00 03 02
480 00 03 11
474 00 00 10
475 00 10 02
478 00 10 56
477 00 00 10
454 00 24 25
457 00 00 10
455 00 09 10
456 00 00 43
338 00 02 31
449 00 08 60
450 00 06 81
451 00 00 20
342 00 13 56
349 00 12 29
341 00 03 52
351 00 22 79
352 00 12 25
393 00 00 37 356 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6741
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
359 00 00 89
360 00 03 69
362 00 10 03
367 00 27 27
273 00 02 05
3. Kabirpur 557 00 27 90
558 00 19 12
562 00 00 10
597 00 00 96
563 00 11 74
Kabirpur 587 00 00 54
586 00 06 74
588 00 00 58
590 00 13 51
536 00 05 44
541 00 02 84
540 00 06 61
539 00 09 24
537 00 04 07
538 00 11 67
539 00 02 50
706 00 02 78
707 00 01 02
708 00 01 00
709 00 00 70
710 00 00 46
712 00 00 86
699 00 08 42
700 00 12 85
704 00 12 30
703 00 01 66
719 00 00 33
4. Kithaut 176 00 19 52
178 00 33 21
479 00 09 48
467 00 09 41 466 00 10 876742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
436 00 18 65 434 00 00 10 437 00 02 41 426 00 09 95 427 00 05 50 428 00 06 83 429 00 03 61 423 00 09 10 424 00 02 80 422 00 05 48
Kithaut
421 00 02 58 419 00 02 24 417 00 00 10 418 00 09 08 415 00 01 56 414 00 03 51 413 00 03 06 412 00 22 67 379 00 07 67 380 00 04 06 381 00 02 30 390 00 05 09 383 00 01 63 389 00 02 12 385 00 05 37 388 00 08 10 386 00 00 23 387 00 06 54 369 00 00 21 367 00 00 15 368 00 15 33 365 00 01 40 370 00 01 45 588 00 05 44
5. Karahara 486 00 22 33 488 00 05 55[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6743
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
509 00 07 82 510 00 35 14 676 00 13 90 679 00 28 57 690 00 07 10 689 00 00 32 693 00 10 12 695 00 05 49 697 00 02 72 701 00 25 30
Karahara
700 00 19 95
733 00 29 33
728 00 01 54
727 00 04 79
6. Surajpur Sothra 50 00 03 14
41 00 26 43
49 00 12 09
48 00 01 95
47 00 05 09
54 00 05 32
55 00 03 67
53 00 11 50
56 00 00 10
57 00 01 87
58 00 16 66
141 00 50 50
140 00 06 62
142 00 04 33
143 00 05 62
144 00 00 85
7. Singemai 78 00 05 38
81 00 11 65
80 00 30 84
82 00 19 87
8. Sothara 627 00 01 31
637 00 06 086744 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
642 00 00 10
644 00 08 38
643 00 01 28
645 00 08 94
657 00 14 63
646 00 00 40
656 00 12 05
649 00 00 10
651 00 01 93
655 00 07 60
9. Akbarpur Sarai 291 00 07 31
292 00 05 14
293 00 04 97
294 00 02 27
295 00 01 62
296 00 18 62
454 00 00 10
455 00 17 62
427 00 12 12
428 00 02 92
425 00 03 08
423 00 01 98
424 00 11 74
429 00 09 11
430 00 05 94
307 00 00 38
308 00 14 98
309 00 07 76
311 00 07 20
312 00 00 10
408 00 00 33
310 00 01 12
407 00 20 15
339 00 00 36
338 00 00 10
341 00 00 18
340 00 00 79[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6745
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
343 00 13 31
346 00 00 36
347 00 05 93
350 00 01 32
348 00 03 79
349 00 04 31
357 00 00 36
363 00 04 05
362 00 08 58
370 00 00 36
Akbarpur Sarai 372 00 07 42
374 00 00 37
376 00 11 40
375 00 03 66
378 00 00 10
390 00 00 41
394 00 12 23
396 00 00 36
397 00 09 63
10. Sherpur Afzalpur 360 00 06 13
361 00 05 98
362 00 05 52
359 00 02 00
363 00 02 33
364 00 00 18
357 00 10 00
375 00 09 55
376 00 05 51
377 00 16 99
379 00 00 45
335 00 00 10
380 00 00 52
381 00 01 99
334 00 02 75
333 00 12 90
384/1015 00 00 36
397 00 22 99
393 00 06 416746 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
391 00 00 56
390 00 14 85
503 00 12 86
502 00 19 16
502/1029 00 05 51
504 00 02 10
509 00 01 70
510 00 18 24
11. Bahadurpur 187 00 02 24
191 00 24 36
Bahadurpur 189 00 01 10
196 00 00 58
198 00 16 09
199 00 01 31
200 00 00 58
204 00 03 01
205 00 00 10
212 00 00 45
213 00 15 85
215 00 00 10
177 00 02 89
149 00 00 10
148 00 01 04
147 00 00 10
146 00 09 86
216 00 00 10
145 00 03 54
144 00 02 45
140 00 11 02
328 00 14 60
135 00 00 10
329 00 05 44
330 00 00 74
331 00 01 40
332 00 01 45
342 00 28 11
374 00 00 40
340 00 06 93
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6747
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
484 00 21 65 485 00 09 71 488 00 10 63 489 00 00 56 491 00 05 04 520 00 01 66 523 00 15 89 522 00 02 71 522/1421 00 00 69 518 00 08 53
Bahadurpur
517 00 03 80 516 00 15 84 544 00 11 11 545 00 11 23 839 00 00 62 864 00 09 07 863 00 08 72 862 00 00 48 865 00 06 47 870 00 00 55 873 00 07 03 872 00 11 41 879 00 00 57 882 00 03 67 883 00 03 99 884 00 04 06 886 00 06 22 887 00 05 66 888 00 06 01
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018/OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1768.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टूण्डला टमिनल से कानपुर टमिनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए। और के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची मे वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
6748 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है , उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टूण्डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना, ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची
तहसील – जसवंतगर जिला – इटावा राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| बम सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेऽफल | ||
| ह ेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1 धनु ंआ 1 00 21 33
4 00 02 12
79 00 09 07
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1768.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Jaswantnagar District:- Etawah State :- Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
4 00 02 12[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6749 79 00 09 07
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018/OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1769.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टूण्डला टमिनल से कानपुर टमिनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची मे वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियो का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है , उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टूण्डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना, ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1 शाहजहापुर 170 00 18 56
169 00 00 10
162 00 08 75
161 00 11 83
165 00 03 89
164 00 00 82
6750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
158 00 00 69
157 00 12 35
152 00 00 34
144 00 03 90
133 00 03 70
145 00 00 96
141 00 00 10
शाहजहापुर 131 00 00 37
143 00 00 16
130 00 07 39
391 00 00 66
390 00 33 29
395 00 00 33
426 00 07 16
427 00 16 18
425 00 01 16
424 00 00 19
436 00 07 34
452 00 00 37
468 00 17 31
2 सैय्यदपुर प्रान 14 00 08 89
22 00 06 43
21 00 01 53
15 00 02 72
16 00 00 78
23 00 15 85
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6751
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
287 00 00 45
288 00 09 02
289 00 00 54
290 00 00 10
291 00 00 23
292 00 01 96
293 00 07 90
सैय्यदपुर प्रान 322 00 11 27
323 00 08 83
326 00 00 26
328 00 07 43
329 00 07 89
331 00 07 77
333 00 00 23
334 00 13 73
335 00 06 99
336 00 05 93
338 00 00 28
392 00 02 00
390 00 04 28
393 00 02 15
394 00 02 22
401 00 12 50
402 00 10 38
404 00 05 436752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
405 00 00 26
407 00 17 47
411 00 01 14
410 00 01 01
406 00 01 33
364 00 00 10
365 00 05 10
सैय्यदपुर प्रान 373 00 17 53
374 00 03 30
372 00 00 53
366 00 26 74
266 00 03 02
268 00 03 99
269 00 04 81
270 00 16 32
271 00 01 25
370 00 00 50
3 हाजीपुर सेमरी 178 00 00 15
179 00 00 10
186 00 00 78
180 00 00 10
181 00 00 31
182 00 00 52
183 00 00 61
4 अहमदपुर 173 00 00 69
181 00 01 59
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6753
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
189 00 09 71
190 00 11 94
225 00 25 52
224 00 00 88
221 00 01 32
264 00 00 37
250 00 00 10
अहमदपुर 248 00 00 15
252 00 22 78
615/247 00 01 00
247 00 00 10
5 तिरकारा दौलतपुर 73 00 06 64
74 00 07 45
75 00 12 35
76 00 03 76
77 00 00 50
84 00 08 06
85 00 06 96
86 00 00 91
87 00 02 38
88 00 00 10
6 शुकरुल्लापुर 215 00 12 58
216 00 15 46
229 00 01 77 228 00 02 406754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
227 00 03 59
226 00 03 49
224 00 05 58
234 00 00 56
236 00 13 71
237 00 00 55
253 00 00 10
शुकरुल्लापुर 255 00 00 10
251 00 08 56
252 00 05 84
7 रम्पुरा 410 00 00 18
411 00 08 80
431 00 12 89
449 00 00 32
450 00 00 12
448 00 15 16
451 00 28 07
453 00 00 72
489 00 09 07
488 00 02 52
497 00 22 94
498 00 02 51
502 00 00 30
503 00 08 40
507 00 07 32
508 00 07 86
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6755
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
523 00 07 42
524 00 06 28
525 00 08 35
582 00 18 92
583 00 00 31
584 00 00 57
585 00 03 83
रम्पुरा 571 00 01 45
572 00 01 94
568 00 25 10
556 00 04 18
555 00 00 73
553 00 04 76
550 00 05 39
549 00 04 96
548 00 06 23
8 मनौना 274 00 05 79
275 00 03 75
276 00 03 15
277 00 03 24
278 00 14 32
263 00 00 26
262 00 11 55
261 00 08 02
309 00 00 10
310 00 20 41
6756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
313 00 09 68
312 00 05 73
319 00 06 68
320 00 00 48
321 00 04 31
334 00 10 45
325 00 00 21
मनौना 326 00 00 96
332 00 10 97
339 00 00 10
333 00 01 84
337 00 00 57
340 00 15 38
343 00 01 63
345 00 02 98
346 00 06 17
352 00 08 03
507 00 00 27
510 00 29 32
553 00 15 17
554 00 00 10
555 00 04 07
571 00 04 86
556 00 00 61
559 00 12 72
560 00 01 24
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6757
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
561 00 01 69
921 00 00 41
914 00 02 46
913 00 01 72
915 00 22 53
916 00 01 33
908 00 02 33
मनौना 909 00 00 10
907 00 18 10
823 00 00 10
902 00 04 94
833 00 30 00
831 00 14 48
830 00 07 90
832 00 13 90
834 00 00 54
837 00 19 30
836 00 02 32
839 00 00 54
840 00 00 36
841 00 16 22
842 00 07 30
780 00 02 65
779 00 03 46
778 00 11 14
777 00 00 10
6758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
776 00 12 22
769 00 00 29
772 00 08 69
773 00 07 89
9 भिडौरा 572 00 01 02
37 00 08 44
41 00 00 37
भिडौरा 44 00 12 81
35 00 01 58
29 00 02 03
30 00 01 01
31 00 11 83
32 00 09 10
33 00 16 72
25 00 00 10
34 00 16 04
91 00 07 05
90 00 04 93
93 00 00 36
116 00 00 28
117 00 26 35
84 00 16 42
83 00 00 10
119 00 00 60
126 00 12 28
130 00 10 58
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6759
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
140 00 00 36
132 00 00 55
138 00 00 10
147 00 14 16
146 00 13 04
167 00 04 41
168 00 00 10
भिडौरा 162 00 12 64
166 00 10 19
165 00 03 14
185 00 00 44
197 00 06 51
198 00 05 93
199 00 06 03
200 00 05 98
201 00 05 90
218 00 04 20
217 00 26 41
215 00 15 05
10 अमामई 386 00 01 15
387 00 00 10
385 00 12 14
390 00 01 17
389 00 09 10
384 00 01 07
382 00 10 69
6760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
439 00 06 19
440 00 05 56
438 00 01 40
426 00 02 13
427 00 06 30
450 00 00 10
433 00 04 66
अमामई 434 00 04 11
435 00 01 01
436 00 05 72
455 00 00 40
478 00 22 88
479 00 00 12
477 00 04 47
487 00 00 29
490 00 06 07
476 00 00 88
475 00 17 37
474 00 00 40
499 00 04 44
500 00 08 11
501 00 09 64
502 00 05 10
511 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6761 तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
791 00 00 64
790 00 09 90
11 बूरामई 176 00 03 65
175 00 01 87
177 00 10 27
239 00 00 58
240 00 00 58
बूरामई 241 00 08 08
242 00 00 39
419 00 00 10
243 00 32 41
417 00 05 70
416 00 10 73
411 00 00 39
410 00 03 63
409 00 04 38
408 00 04 04
407 00 03 53
405 00 00 37
401 00 10 09
399 00 00 12
398 00 09 50
397 00 06 69
396 00 04 39
6762 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
तहसील: करहल
जिला: मैनपुरी राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
395 00 05 60
392 00 05 15
391 00 12 88
390 00 05 66
388 00 00 38
387 00 09 14
बूरामई 386 00 03 82
385 00 00 32
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1769.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra (U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Karhal District:- Mainpuri State :- Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
169 00 00 10 [भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6763
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
165 00 03 89 164 00 00 82 158 00 00 69 157 00 12 35 152 00 00 34 144 00 03 90 133 00 03 70 145 00 00 96
Shahjahanpur
141 00 00 10 131 00 00 37 143 00 00 16 130 00 07 39 391 00 00 66 390 00 33 29 395 00 00 33 426 00 07 16 427 00 16 18 425 00 01 16 424 00 00 19 436 00 07 34 452 00 00 37 468 00 17 31 14 00 08 89
2 Saiyadpur Pran
22 00 06 43 21 00 01 53 15 00 02 726764 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
289 00 00 54 290 00 00 10 291 00 00 23 292 00 01 96 293 00 07 90 322 00 11 27 323 00 08 83 326 00 00 26
Saiyadpur Pran
328 00 07 43 329 00 07 89 331 00 07 77 333 00 00 23 334 00 13 73 335 00 06 99 336 00 05 93 338 00 00 28 392 00 02 00 390 00 04 28 393 00 02 15 394 00 02 22 401 00 12 50 402 00 10 38 403 00 09 37 404 00 05 43 405 00 00 26 407 00 17 47[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6765
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
365 00 05 10
373 00 17 53
374 00 03 30
372 00 00 53
366 00 26 74
266 00 03 02
268 00 03 99
Saiyadpur Pran 269 00 04 81
270 00 16 32
271 00 01 25
370 00 00 50
3 Hajipur Samari 178 00 00 15
179 00 00 10
186 00 00 78
180 00 00 10
181 00 00 31
182 00 00 52
183 00 00 61
4 Ahmadpur 173 00 00 69
181 00 01 59
189 00 09 71
190 00 11 94
225 00 25 52
224 00 00 88
221 00 01 32
264 00 00 37
250 00 00 10
248 00 00 15
6766 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
247 00 00 10
5 Tirkara Daulatpur 73 00 06 64
74 00 07 45
75 00 12 35
76 00 03 76
77 00 00 50
84 00 08 06
Tirkara Daulatpur 85 00 06 96
86 00 00 91
87 00 02 38
88 00 00 10
6 Shukrullapur 215 00 12 58
216 00 15 46
219 00 16 74
229 00 01 77
228 00 02 40
227 00 03 59
226 00 03 49
224 00 05 58
234 00 00 56
236 00 13 71
237 00 00 55
253 00 00 10
255 00 00 10
251 00 08 56
252 00 05 84
7 Rampura 410 00 00 18
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6767
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
450 00 00 12
448 00 15 16
451 00 28 07
453 00 00 72
489 00 09 07
488 00 02 52
497 00 22 94
Rampura 498 00 02 51
502 00 00 30
503 00 08 40
507 00 07 32
508 00 07 86
523 00 07 42
524 00 06 28
525 00 08 35
582 00 18 92
583 00 00 31
584 00 00 57
585 00 03 83
571 00 01 45
572 00 01 94
568 00 25 10
556 00 04 18
555 00 00 73
553 00 04 76
550 00 05 39
6768 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
276 00 03 15
277 00 03 24
278 00 14 32
263 00 00 26
262 00 11 55
261 00 08 02
309 00 00 10
Manauna 310 00 20 41
313 00 09 68
312 00 05 73
319 00 06 68
320 00 00 48
321 00 04 31
334 00 10 45
325 00 00 21
326 00 00 96
332 00 10 97
339 00 00 10
333 00 01 84
337 00 00 57
340 00 15 38
343 00 01 63
345 00 02 98
346 00 06 17
352 00 08 03
507 00 00 27
510 00 29 32
554 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6769
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
571 00 04 86
556 00 00 61
559 00 12 72
560 00 01 24
561 00 01 69
921 00 00 41
914 00 02 46
Manauna 913 00 01 72
915 00 22 53
916 00 01 33
908 00 02 33
909 00 00 10
907 00 18 10
823 00 00 10
902 00 04 94
833 00 30 00
831 00 14 48
830 00 07 90
832 00 13 90
834 00 00 54
837 00 19 30
836 00 02 32
839 00 00 54
840 00 00 36
841 00 16 22
842 00 07 30
780 00 02 65
6770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
776 00 12 22
769 00 00 29
772 00 08 69
773 00 07 89
9 Bhidaura 572 00 01 02
37 00 08 44
41 00 00 37
Bhidaura 44 00 12 81
35 00 01 58
29 00 02 03
30 00 01 01
31 00 11 83
32 00 09 10
33 00 16 72
25 00 00 10
34 00 16 04
91 00 07 05
90 00 04 93
93 00 00 36
116 00 00 28
117 00 26 35
84 00 16 42
83 00 00 10
119 00 00 60
126 00 12 28
130 00 10 58
138 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6771
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
146 00 13 04
167 00 04 41
168 00 00 10
162 00 12 64
166 00 10 19
165 00 03 14
185 00 00 44
Bhidaura 197 00 06 51
198 00 05 93
199 00 06 03
200 00 05 98
201 00 05 90
218 00 04 20
217 00 26 41
215 00 15 05
10 Amamai 386 00 01 15
387 00 00 10
385 00 12 14
390 00 01 17
389 00 09 10
384 00 01 07
382 00 10 69
439 00 06 19
440 00 05 56
438 00 01 40
426 00 02 13
427 00 06 30
450 00 00 10
6772 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
435 00 01 01
436 00 05 72
455 00 00 40
478 00 22 88
479 00 00 12
477 00 04 47
487 00 00 29
Amamai 490 00 06 07
476 00 00 88
475 00 17 37
474 00 00 40
499 00 04 44
500 00 08 11
501 00 09 64
502 00 05 10
512 00 01 17
759 00 12 72
511 00 00 10
791 00 00 64
790 00 09 90
11 Buramai 176 00 03 65
175 00 01 87
177 00 10 27
239 00 00 58
240 00 00 58
241 00 08 08
242 00 00 39
419 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6773
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
416 00 10 73
411 00 00 39
410 00 03 63
409 00 04 38
408 00 04 04
407 00 03 53
405 00 00 37
Buramai 401 00 10 09
399 00 00 12
398 00 09 50
397 00 06 69
396 00 04 39
395 00 05 60
392 00 05 15
391 00 12 88
390 00 05 66
388 00 00 38
387 00 09 14
386 00 03 82
385 00 00 32
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018-OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1770.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टूण्डला टमिनल से कानपुर टमिनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इससे उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची में वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
6774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है , उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टूण्डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना,ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची
तहसील – इटावा जिला – इटावा
राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1 राहिन 1033 00 00 31
1056 00 19 18
1063 00 01 33
1064 00 14 53
1062 00 10 58
1060 00 01 28
1061 00 00 62
706 00 03 57
708 00 01 24
707 00 13 48
709 00 11 09
710 00 00 50
705 00 00 44
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6775
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
682 00 00 79
690 00 00 15
689 00 15 18
691 00 00 36
2 गुलावपुर 322 00 06 36
324 00 11 29
328 00 00 38
329 00 06 83
331 00 07 20
गुलावपुर 334 00 15 84
335 00 00 29
304 00 14 00
305 00 10 64
306 00 00 10
350 00 36 69
351 00 14 98
353 00 14 44
354 00 01 67
356 00 01 13
355 00 00 82
292 00 05 31
288 00 07 65
287 00 02 84
289 00 00 27
275 00 03 07 3 के शोंपुर राहिन 140 00 02 986776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
139 00 00 66
138 00 03 74
137 00 10 36
123 00 01 30
122 00 06 27
121 00 00 10
118 00 01 40
115 00 06 35
114 00 00 54
के शोंपुर राहिन 111 00 00 48
106 00 00 47
105 00 09 85
104 00 14 49
103 00 01 64
255 00 00 69
284 00 15 65
283 00 12 56
285 00 00 10
281 00 00 92
277 00 01 50
288 00 00 59
291 00 00 10
292 00 05 03
296 00 03 79
294 00 00 60
295 00 03 20
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6777
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
303 00 08 75
304 00 00 39
307 00 09 07
306 00 18 39
305 00 00 94
318 00 00 23
325 00 17 71
326 00 04 92
327 00 11 48
के शोंपुर राहिन 330 00 15 78
4 सुल्तानपुर राहिन 485 00 02 28
5 गंगापुर 64 00 00 90
67 00 05 02
72 00 03 57
73 00 13 55
74 00 01 63
76 00 00 27
161 00 12 70
157 00 04 99
158 00 01 42
159 00 00 10
154 00 00 61
148 00 00 26
147 00 01 95
6778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
143 00 01 33
142 00 00 42
166 00 02 59
140 00 13 72
125 00 18 74
120 00 01 48
119 00 00 88
121 00 02 67
116 00 12 81
गंगापुर 114 00 00 71
176 00 00 21
183 00 00 24
178 00 04 71
180 00 01 39
181 00 01 07
181/844 00 00 52
182 00 00 10
179 00 04 86
6 विठौली 93 00 05 19
89 00 05 63
79 00 22 44
90 00 00 10
122 00 06 57
123 00 05 21
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6779
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
137 00 00 16
131 00 00 40
199 00 00 10
198 00 23 04
197 00 04 17
196 00 09 14
195 00 01 41
312 00 08 32
313 00 10 83
विठौली 314 00 04 67
315 00 02 59
316 00 04 31
264 00 00 10
265 00 00 10
321 00 00 38
324 00 03 80
325 00 00 10
311 00 00 19
264 00 00 10
265 00 00 10
274 00 04 89
275 00 07 70
276 00 06 91
277 00 08 87
6780 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
300 00 07 40
306 00 04 16
302 00 01 67
305 00 00 10
304 00 00 28
7 चौबिया 1289 00 09 31
1290 00 09 69
1285 00 00 88
1291 00 15 08
चौबिया 1304 00 04 39
1306 00 15 05
1277 00 04 85
1276 00 03 62
1275 00 09 16
1273 00 24 71
1424 00 00 36
1432 00 00 86
1431 00 10 27
1434 00 00 36
1435 00 14 24
1436 00 00 46
8 बख्त्यारपुर 247 00 00 46
246 00 00 70
248 00 07 76
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6781
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
263 00 00 46
264 00 09 03
270 00 09 72
271 00 21 23
276 00 13 55
278 00 00 10
9 खेडा हेलू 4 00 00 28
2 00 05 90
3 00 05 57
खेडा हेलू 5 00 07 71
10 मू ंज 3437 00 10 47
3438 00 31 31
3432 00 41 43
3431 00 39 02
3427 00 00 52
3424 00 24 13
3423 00 29 45
3454 00 00 10
3452 00 06 56
3455 00 03 47
3354 00 09 50
3355 00 06 76
3357 00 07 24
3360 00 21 02
6782 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3336 00 05 67
3307 00 09 14
3571 00 09 49
3572 00 59 41
3547 00 18 48
3543 00 02 01
3542 00 01 23
3541 00 05 09
3548 00 19 80
मू ंज 3535 00 00 49
3549 00 00 49
3551 00 01 06
3532 00 33 61
3550 00 02 89
3531 00 31 09
3744 00 10 74
3733 00 02 20
3734 00 03 42
3735 00 07 76
3736 00 06 62
3747 00 23 89
3748 00 00 27
3751 00 00 10
3753 00 12 80
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6783
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3760 00 02 79
11 मसनाई 454 00 20 84
453 00 39 44
451 00 04 38
440 00 43 51
446 00 08 13
447 00 07 35
450 00 00 10
449 00 00 55
मसनाई 448 00 05 14
484 00 44 29
490 00 01 80
498 00 00 10
499 00 01 22
479 00 02 13
478 00 00 73
477 00 17 09
508 00 03 25
500 00 21 47
497 00 00 17
495 00 00 89
504 00 01 25
501 00 00 10
505 00 41 02
12 सदनपुर 108 00 07 02
6784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
104 00 00 10
103 00 00 52
97 00 02 53
100 00 07 26
101 00 07 53
150 00 07 24
149 00 02 07
151 00 00 78
152 00 14 32
सदनपुर 153 00 06 32
154 00 06 61
155 00 11 80
180 00 09 06
181 00 01 64
182 00 05 33
207 00 03 22
208 00 00 33
183 00 01 95
206 00 02 69
205 00 03 58
204 00 00 49
199 00 05 48
198 00 07 11
197 00 00 38
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6785
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1770.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra(U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Etawah District:- Etawah State :- Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1056 00 19 18 1063 00 01 33 1064 00 14 53 1062 00 10 58 1060 00 01 28 1061 00 00 62 706 00 03 57 708 00 01 24 707 00 13 48 709 00 11 09 710 00 00 50 705 00 00 44 703 00 01 14 711 00 22 88 712 00 14 40 682 00 00 79 690 00 00 15 689 00 15 18 691 00 00 36 322 00 06 36
2 Gulabpur
324 00 11 29 328 00 00 38 329 00 06 83 331 00 07 20 334 00 15 846786 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
354 00 01 67
356 00 01 13
355 00 00 82
292 00 05 31
288 00 07 65
287 00 02 84
289 00 00 27
274 00 00 27
275 00 03 07
3 Keshonpur Rahin 140 00 02 98
139 00 00 66
138 00 03 74
137 00 10 36
123 00 01 30
Keshonpur Rahin 122 00 06 27
121 00 00 10
118 00 01 40
115 00 06 35
114 00 00 54
111 00 00 48
106 00 00 47
105 00 09 85
104 00 14 49
103 00 01 64
255 00 00 69
284 00 15 65
283 00 12 56
285 00 00 10
281 00 00 92
277 00 01 50
288 00 00 59
291 00 00 10
292 00 05 03
296 00 03 79
294 00 00 60
295 00 03 20
297 00 00 10
303 00 08 75
304 00 00 39
307 00 09 07
306 00 18 39
305 00 00 94
318 00 00 23
64 00 00 90 5 Gangapur[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6787
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
72 00 03 57
73 00 13 55
74 00 01 63
76 00 00 27
161 00 12 70
157 00 04 99
158 00 01 42
159 00 00 10
154 00 00 61
148 00 00 26
147 00 01 95
146 00 02 65
145 00 00 32
144 00 00 43
Gangapur 143 00 01 33
142 00 00 42
166 00 02 59
140 00 13 72
125 00 18 74
120 00 01 48
119 00 00 88
121 00 02 67
116 00 12 81
114 00 00 71
176 00 00 21
183 00 00 24
178 00 04 71
180 00 01 39
181 00 01 07
181/844 00 00 52
182 00 00 10
179 00 04 86
93 00 05 19
6 Bitholi
89 00 05 63 79 00 22 44 90 00 00 10 122 00 06 57 123 00 05 21 136 00 15 55 135 00 04 42 134 00 05 05 137 00 00 16 131 00 00 406788 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
314 00 04 67
315 00 02 59
316 00 04 31
264 00 00 10
265 00 00 10
321 00 00 38
324 00 03 80
325 00 00 10
311 00 00 19
264 00 00 10
265 00 00 10
274 00 04 89
275 00 07 70
276 00 06 91
Bitholi 277 00 08 87
298 00 19 50
297 00 01 20
301 00 06 51
300 00 07 40
306 00 04 16
302 00 01 67
305 00 00 10
304 00 00 28
1289 00 09 31
7 Chobiya
1290 00 09 69
1285 00 00 88
1291 00 15 08
1304 00 04 39
1306 00 15 05
1277 00 04 85
1276 00 03 62
1275 00 09 16
1273 00 24 71
1424 00 00 36
1432 00 00 86
1431 00 10 27
1434 00 00 36
1435 00 14 24
1436 00 00 46
8 Bakhityarpur 247 00 00 46
246 00 00 70
248 00 07 76
252 00 17 68
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6789
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
278 00 00 10 4 00 00 28
9 Kherahelu
2 00 05 90 3 00 05 57 5 00 07 71 3437 00 10 47
10 Moonj
3438 00 31 31
3432 00 41 43
3431 00 39 02
3427 00 00 52
3424 00 24 13
3423 00 29 45
3454 00 00 10
3452 00 06 56
Moonj 3455 00 03 47
3354 00 09 50
3355 00 06 76
3357 00 07 24
3360 00 21 02
3358 00 03 46
3339 00 10 64
3361 00 36 89
3336 00 05 67
3307 00 09 14
3571 00 09 49
3572 00 59 41
3547 00 18 48
3543 00 02 01
3542 00 01 23
3541 00 05 09
3548 00 19 80
3535 00 00 49
3549 00 00 49
3551 00 01 06
3532 00 33 61
3550 00 02 89
3531 00 31 09
3744 00 10 74
3733 00 02 20
3734 00 03 42
3735 00 07 76
3736 00 06 62
3747 00 23 89
3748 00 00 27
6790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
454 00 20 84 11 Masnai
453 00 39 44
451 00 04 38
440 00 43 51
446 00 08 13
447 00 07 35
450 00 00 10
449 00 00 55
448 00 05 14
484 00 44 29
490 00 01 80
498 00 00 10
499 00 01 22
Masnai 479 00 02 13
478 00 00 73
477 00 17 09
508 00 03 25
500 00 21 47
497 00 00 17
495 00 00 89
504 00 01 25
501 00 00 10
505 00 41 02
108 00 07 02
12 Sadanpur
107 00 05 40 106 00 14 03 104 00 00 10 103 00 00 52 97 00 02 53 100 00 07 26 101 00 07 53 150 00 07 24 149 00 02 07 151 00 00 78 152 00 14 32 153 00 06 32 154 00 06 61 155 00 11 80[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6791
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
208 00 00 33 183 00 01 95 206 00 02 69 205 00 03 58 204 00 00 49 199 00 05 48 198 00 07 11 197 00 00 38
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018-OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1771.—के न्र्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में टूण्डला टमिनल से कानपुर टमिनल तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए।
और के न्र्दीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में जो इस से उपाब(cid:7373) अनुसूची मे वणित है, और जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ।
अतः अब, के न्र्दीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियो का प्रयोग करते हुए उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ।
कोई (cid:7390)क्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वणित भूमि में हितब(cid:7373) है , उस तारीख से, जिसको इस अधिसूचना में युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल काप(cid:7299)रेशन लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग, निर्माण कार्यालय, उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स, टूण्डला - गौरिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना, ई-160, प्रथम व द्वितीय तल, कमला नगर, आगरा (यू.पी.) – 282004 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सके गा।
अनुसूची
तहसील – सैफई जिला – इटावा
राज्य – उत्तर प्रदेश
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1. वियारी भटपुरा 2 00 00 10 6792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
7 00 05 61
8 00 03 60
9 00 20 83
12 00 05 80
28 00 12 06
29 00 17 02
30 00 07 02
31 00 00 10
46 00 15 33
47 00 05 85
45 00 07 26
वियारी भटपुरा 92 00 09 09
103 00 12 41
102 00 10 95
101 00 10 90
100 00 00 36
99 00 10 22
207 00 25 94
187 00 02 15
190 00 16 48
201 00 10 99
194 00 00 62
193 00 11 47
195 00 18 04
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6793
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
164 00 01 19
165 00 02 84
171 00 02 05
169 00 03 81
173 00 02 00
2. झिगूपुर 35 00 22 73
34 00 18 55
33 00 17 06
181 00 09 57
180 00 20 46
203 00 52 98
झिगूपुर 202 00 00 14
204 00 18 63
206 00 00 10
3. चौबेपुर 10 00 08 39
9 00 09 02
8 00 02 12
39 00 00 17
40 00 19 75
41 00 00 37
4. ग(cid:7277)जा 519 00 00 42
520 00 03 92
521 00 11 59
522 00 07 19
531 00 10 866794 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
532 00 03 44
586 00 17 77
533 00 00 21
585 00 01 78
583 00 00 10
584 00 16 66
588 00 00 34
590 00 23 54
603 00 13 17
602 00 01 51
600 00 11 64
ग(cid:7277)जा 599 00 20 21
611 00 00 10
612 00 00 29
613 00 00 36
666 00 00 10
669 00 10 57
668 00 04 80
667 00 12 44
674 00 00 67
687 00 22 54
706 00 18 97
705 00 08 32
1006 00 00 42
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6795
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
993 00 05 77
992 00 11 63
991 00 20 12
989 00 08 87
988 00 06 39
987 00 17 10
986 00 00 30
985 00 07 18
5. तिरकाराबाचा 11 00 07 68
न.सुभान 10 00 17 86
104 00 00 10
तिरकाराबाचा 103 00 00 10
न.सुभान 102 00 00 10
9 00 10 30
106 00 09 97
108 00 07 19
99 00 11 99
110 00 00 50
98 00 31 57
95 00 12 39
155 00 30 14
154 00 00 10
156 00 17 51
157 00 08 11
6. लछवाई 297 00 20 26
296 00 00 10
6796 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
311 00 00 55
313 00 15 47
329 00 54 09
319 00 00 52
322 00 30 58
476 00 25 12
477 00 01 80
478 00 08 72
479 00 00 41
480 00 05 97
481 00 09 47
लछवाई 482 00 00 10
488 00 34 93
487 00 00 68
490 00 13 41
489 00 05 33
492 00 02 15
493 00 04 66
500 00 04 06
498 00 04 31
499 00 01 89
497 00 09 53
496 00 00 17
600 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6797
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
596 00 07 19
597 00 01 46
602 00 00 50
603 00 17 68
594 00 15 23
593 00 00 23
606 00 01 55
592 00 08 09
608 00 02 11
978 00 12 39
979 00 29 40
लछवाई 996 00 06 50
997 00 08 76
1005 00 08 60
995 00 00 10
1006 00 08 15
1008 00 00 10
1009 00 00 10
994 00 12 72
1007 00 02 05
1010 00 10 55
1020 00 01 27
1021 00 13 68
1023 00 02 41
6798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
901 00 01 31
900 00 12 79
873 00 06 99
899 00 03 58
898 00 09 57
887 00 02 17
896 00 00 72
895 00 00 20
888 00 15 12
894 00 00 10
893 00 00 10
लछवाई 892 00 02 42
891 00 02 49
854 00 03 27
851 00 01 14
844 00 00 20
852 00 01 00
853 00 04 65
856 00 01 74
839 00 00 76
837 00 03 57
838 00 00 26
836 00 04 13
834 00 18 55
826 00 01 00[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6799
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
832 00 00 10
812 00 31 08
813 00 08 45
814 00 00 10
7. नरहौली भिडरुआ 22 00 22 87
25 00 01 27
24 00 00 60
23 00 04 70
28 00 00 10
30 00 00 77
29 00 32 83
नरहौली भिडरुआ 321 00 01 25
334 00 08 26
335 00 17 16
340 00 11 50
341 00 06 19
508 00 01 86
495 00 29 62
496 00 14 15
497 00 02 59
8. पिडारी 198 00 01 09
1156 00 07 33
1157 00 03 06
1158 00 18 02
6800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1146 00 06 21
9. ककरारा 68 00 10 47
66 00 03 34
67 00 01 41
65 00 12 98
61 00 01 18
64 00 06 14
63 00 10 82
88 00 00 85
96 00 22 78
95 00 09 07
ककरारा 131 00 08 24
129 00 17 59
127 00 16 64
125 00 15 94
10. उसरई 285 00 03 87
283 00 22 26
282 00 00 21
276 00 00 41
275 00 02 32
274 00 07 48
273 00 00 45
272 00 12 28
139 00 03 29
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6801
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
146 00 12 77
147 00 37 80
148 00 64 24
100 00 00 50
85 00 00 10
173 00 40 19
177 00 06 99
178 00 11 90
169 00 01 17
219 00 05 91
215 00 00 66
उसरई 214 00 00 33
218 00 00 11
213 00 04 61
212 00 04 31
211 00 00 59
209 00 10 19
208 00 10 47
228 00 00 65
238 00 10 67
237 00 02 11
233 00 00 10
235 00 00 10
240 00 05 96
11. कु म्हावर 165 00 00 38 6802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
168 00 15 53
166 00 00 91
167 00 06 93
172 00 05 25
173 00 05 85
175 00 05 27
176 00 05 77
180 00 09 95
179 00 00 22
181 00 04 28
182 00 00 10
कु म्हावर 185 00 06 70
194 00 02 39
192 00 01 69
195 00 01 95
196 00 00 60
529 00 00 67
518 00 00 10
530 00 00 10
531 00 08 72
533 00 03 12
534 00 00 10
560 00 43 06
572 00 00 36
571 00 00 10[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6803
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
644 00 03 46
642 00 00 10
643 00 03 89
631 00 00 10
630 00 00 10
625 00 00 22
626 00 13 30
627 00 02 01
628 00 00 10
622 00 10 92
612 00 13 86
कु म्हावर 610 00 10 72
609 00 05 33
12. ल(cid:7301)गपुर 29 00 01 24
30 00 01 38
33 00 02 37
32 00 17 63
72 00 01 57
73 00 11 30
74 00 04 56
75 00 08 39
76 00 03 94
77 00 03 70
78 00 03 65
6804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
133 00 01 50
136 00 01 20
137 00 04 18
138 00 06 76
142 00 04 13
143 00 00 67
145 00 05 77
147 00 03 04
148 00 02 66
229 00 04 11
227 00 01 62
ल(cid:7301)गपुर 231 00 01 36
232 00 01 54
233 00 01 38
235 00 03 53
237 00 15 91
238 00 00 36
230 00 00 10
239 00 10 22
240 00 10 22
241 00 02 07
13. तुलसीपुर 202 00 00 10
201 00 02 74
200 00 13 73
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6805
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
191 00 06 91
185 00 12 16
184 00 10 67
183 00 00 10
170 00 18 81
169 00 00 10
172 00 03 62
171 00 01 24
175 00 00 27
176 00 01 18
165 00 04 26
तुलसीपुर 164 00 07 11
163 00 07 05
158 00 20 22
157 00 03 67
156 00 09 11
155 00 07 85
154 00 10 71
149 00 00 52
14. जाफरपुर 396 00 19 01
397 00 01 62
399 00 00 23
388 00 16 79
385 00 00 37
6806 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
372 00 12 69
345 00 00 46
346 00 15 07
344 00 00 28
343 00 00 60
347 00 00 36
322 00 10 31
323 00 12 15
326 00 18 77
327 00 00 18
332 00 07 44
जाफरपुर 331 00 02 91
330 00 05 16
15. भागीपुर 445 00 00 36
443 00 12 46
442 00 01 83
430 00 00 36
420 00 09 16
421 00 13 26
417 00 00 68
408 00 05 34
409 00 08 43
407 00 00 12
406 00 00 49
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6807
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
403 00 00 37
393 00 12 32
392 00 03 10
394 00 01 69
395 00 00 81
396 00 05 24
601 00 05 83
602 00 04 67
603 00 00 80
600 00 06 86
598/717 00 00 28
भागीपुर 605 00 22 08
590 00 00 36
592 00 00 57
593 00 16 44
583 00 00 10
582 00 09 67
655 00 10 24
656 00 02 51
657 00 08 44
658 00 14 10
682 00 00 10
683 00 00 10
681 00 13 82
6808 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| कर्म सं. | गांव का नाम | ख़सरा सं. | क्षेत्रफल | ||
| हेक्टेयर | एयर | वर्ग मीटर | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
704 00 00 10
[फा. सं. आर-11025(11)20/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27595]
नोवस किन्डो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2018
S.O. 1771.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Tundla Terminal to Kanpur Terminal should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited. And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty–one days from the date on which the copies of this notification, as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division), Construction Office, Northern Region Pipelines, Tundla-Gawria Pipeline Project, E-160,1st & 2nd floor, Kamlanagar, Agra (U.P.) – 282 004.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil:- Saifai District:- Etawah State :- Uttar Pradesh
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
3 00 14 27 7 00 05 61 8 00 03 60 9 00 20 83 12 00 05 80 28 00 12 06 29 00 17 02 30 00 07 02 31 00 00 10 46 00 15 33 47 00 05 85 45 00 07 26[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6809
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
99 00 10 22 207 00 25 94 187 00 02 15 190 00 16 48 201 00 10 99 194 00 00 62 193 00 11 47 195 00 18 04 183 00 17 71 172 00 62 33 163 00 00 10 164 00 01 19 165 00 02 84 171 00 02 05 169 00 03 81 173 00 02 00 35 00 22 73
2. Jhingupur
34 00 18 55
33 00 17 06
181 00 09 57
Jhingupur 180 00 20 46
203 00 52 98
202 00 00 14
204 00 18 63
206 00 00 10
3. Chaubeypur 10 00 08 39
9 00 09 02
8 00 02 12
39 00 00 17
40 00 19 75
41 00 00 37
519 00 00 42
4. Geenja
520 00 03 92 521 00 11 59 522 00 07 196810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
533 00 00 21
585 00 01 78
583 00 00 10
584 00 16 66
588 00 00 34
590 00 23 54
603 00 13 17
602 00 01 51
600 00 11 64
599 00 20 21
611 00 00 10
612 00 00 29
613 00 00 36
666 00 00 10
669 00 10 57
668 00 04 80
667 00 12 44
674 00 00 67
687 00 22 54
706 00 18 97
Geenja 705 00 08 32
1006 00 00 42
1001 00 18 32
999 00 31 01
1019 00 00 10
993 00 05 77
992 00 11 63
991 00 20 12
989 00 08 87
988 00 06 39
987 00 17 10
986 00 00 30
985 00 07 18
5. Tirkarabacha 11 00 07 68
N. Subhan 10 00 17 86
104 00 00 10
103 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6811
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
108 00 07 19
99 00 11 99
110 00 00 50
98 00 31 57
95 00 12 39
155 00 30 14
154 00 00 10
156 00 17 51
157 00 08 11
6. Lachhwai 297 00 20 26
296 00 00 10
310 00 31 64
311 00 00 55
313 00 15 47
329 00 54 09
319 00 00 52
322 00 30 58
476 00 25 12
477 00 01 80
478 00 08 72
Lachhwai 479 00 00 41
480 00 05 97
481 00 09 47
482 00 00 10
488 00 34 93
487 00 00 68
490 00 13 41
489 00 05 33
492 00 02 15
493 00 04 66
500 00 04 06
498 00 04 31
499 00 01 89
497 00 09 53
496 00 00 17
600 00 00 10
599 00 00 74 6812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
597 00 01 46
602 00 00 50
603 00 17 68
594 00 15 23
593 00 00 23
606 00 01 55
592 00 08 09
608 00 02 11
978 00 12 39
979 00 29 40
996 00 06 50
997 00 08 76
1005 00 08 60
995 00 00 10
1006 00 08 15
1008 00 00 10
1009 00 00 10
994 00 12 72
1007 00 02 05
1010 00 10 55
Lachhwai 1020 00 01 27
1021 00 13 68
1023 00 02 41
1022 00 05 27
903 00 12 79
902 00 08 88
901 00 01 31
900 00 12 79
873 00 06 99
899 00 03 58
898 00 09 57
887 00 02 17
896 00 00 72
895 00 00 20
888 00 15 12
894 00 00 10
893 00 00 10
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6813
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
851 00 01 14
844 00 00 20
852 00 01 00
853 00 04 65
856 00 01 74
839 00 00 76
837 00 03 57
838 00 00 26
836 00 04 13
834 00 18 55
835 00 00 10
833 00 26 23
826 00 01 00
832 00 00 10
812 00 31 08
813 00 08 45
814 00 00 10
7. Narhauli Bhidarua 22 00 22 87
25 00 01 27
24 00 00 60
Narhauli Bhidarua 23 00 04 70
28 00 00 10
30 00 00 77
29 00 32 83
321 00 01 25
334 00 08 26
335 00 17 16
340 00 11 50
341 00 06 19
508 00 01 86
495 00 29 62
496 00 14 15
497 00 02 59
198 00 01 09
8. Pindari
1156 00 07 33 6814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
1146 00 06 21
9. Kakrara 68 00 10 47
66 00 03 34
67 00 01 41
65 00 12 98
61 00 01 18
64 00 06 14
63 00 10 82
88 00 00 85
96 00 22 78
95 00 09 07
131 00 08 24
129 00 17 59
127 00 16 64
125 00 15 94
10. Usrai 285 00 03 87
283 00 22 26
282 00 00 21
276 00 00 41
275 00 02 32
Usrai 274 00 07 48
273 00 00 45
272 00 12 28
139 00 03 29
145 00 11 28
143 00 00 90
144 00 01 18
146 00 12 77
147 00 37 80
148 00 64 24
100 00 00 50
85 00 00 10
173 00 40 19
177 00 06 99
178 00 11 90
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6815
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
213 00 04 61 212 00 04 31 211 00 00 59 209 00 10 19 208 00 10 47 228 00 00 65 238 00 10 67 237 00 02 11 233 00 00 10 235 00 00 10 240 00 05 96 246 00 21 04 165 00 00 38
11. Kumhavar
169 00 00 10
168 00 15 53
166 00 00 91
167 00 06 93
172 00 05 25
173 00 05 85
175 00 05 27
Kumhavar 176 00 05 77
180 00 09 95
179 00 00 22
181 00 04 28
182 00 00 10
185 00 06 70
194 00 02 39
192 00 01 69
195 00 01 95
196 00 00 60
529 00 00 67
518 00 00 10
530 00 00 10
531 00 08 72
533 00 03 12
534 00 00 10
6816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
571 00 00 10
644 00 03 46
642 00 00 10
643 00 03 89
631 00 00 10
630 00 00 10
625 00 00 22
626 00 13 30
627 00 02 01
628 00 00 10
622 00 10 92
612 00 13 86
610 00 10 72
609 00 05 33
12. Laungpur 29 00 01 24
30 00 01 38
33 00 02 37
32 00 17 63
72 00 01 57
73 00 11 30
Laungpur 74 00 04 56
75 00 08 39
76 00 03 94
77 00 03 70
78 00 03 65
81 00 00 10
83 00 05 31
82 00 00 72
133 00 01 50
136 00 01 20
137 00 04 18
138 00 06 76
142 00 04 13
143 00 00 67
145 00 05 77
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6817
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
232 00 01 54 233 00 01 38 235 00 03 53 237 00 15 91 238 00 00 36 230 00 00 10 239 00 10 22 240 00 10 22 241 00 02 07 202 00 00 10
13. Tulsipur
201 00 02 74
200 00 13 73
199 00 00 70
198 00 00 15
192 00 00 45
191 00 06 91
185 00 12 16
184 00 10 67
183 00 00 10
170 00 18 81
Tulsipur 169 00 00 10
172 00 03 62
171 00 01 24
175 00 00 27
176 00 01 18
165 00 04 26
164 00 07 11
163 00 07 05
158 00 20 22
157 00 03 67
156 00 09 11
155 00 07 85
154 00 10 71
149 00 00 52
396 00 19 01
14. Jafarpur
6818 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
381 00 12 94 365 00 00 36 372 00 12 69 345 00 00 46 346 00 15 07 344 00 00 28 343 00 00 60 347 00 00 36 322 00 10 31 323 00 12 15 326 00 18 77 327 00 00 18 332 00 07 44 331 00 02 91 330 00 05 16 445 00 00 36
15. Bhagipur
443 00 12 46
442 00 01 83
430 00 00 36
420 00 09 16
Bhagipur 421 00 13 26
417 00 00 68
408 00 05 34
409 00 08 43
407 00 00 12
406 00 00 49
405 00 01 21
404 00 00 36
411 00 07 91
403 00 00 37
393 00 12 32
392 00 03 10
394 00 01 69
395 00 00 81
396 00 05 24
603 00 00 80[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6819
| Sl. No. | Name of the Village | Khasara No. | Area | ||
| Hectare | Are | Sq.mtr. | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
598/717 00 00 28 605 00 22 08 590 00 00 36 592 00 00 57 593 00 16 44 583 00 00 10 582 00 09 67 655 00 10 24 656 00 02 51 657 00 08 44 658 00 14 10 682 00 00 10 683 00 00 10 681 00 13 82 680 00 01 16 699 00 27 96 703 00 00 10 704 00 00 10
[F. No. R-11025(11)20/2018/OR-I/E-27595]
NOAS KINDO, Under Secy.
6820 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 30 अक्तूबर, 2018
का.आ. 1772 .-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम. 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्र्दीय सरकार,
मेसर्स विद्युत मापने के उपकरणों के डिजाइन संस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:7373) नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में
निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्र्दीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं शर्म न्यायालय स. 2, दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ
संख्या 44/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्र्दीय सरकार को 12.10.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-42012/04/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]
राजेंर्द जोशी, उप निदेशक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 30th October, 2018
S.O. 1772.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 44/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Court Labour No. 2, Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the M/s. Institute for Design of Electrical Measuring Instruments, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12.10.2018.
[No. L-42012/04/2012 IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 44 of 2012
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF INSTITUTE FOR DESIGN OF ELECTRICAL
MEASURING INSTRUMENTS
The Principal Director, Institute for Design of Electrical Measuring Instruments, Swatantraveer Tatya Tope Marg, Chunabhatti, Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Anil Kamlakar Thakur, 596/8, Bhonwada Gaon, Jerbai Wadia Road, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Umesh Nabar Advocate FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 11th September, 2018
7000 GI/2017[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6821
AWARD PART – I
1. This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-42012/04/2012 – IR (DU) dated 09.10.2012. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
"Whether the action of the management of Institute for Design of Electrical Measuring Instruments, Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Anil Kamlakar Thakur by way of penalty of dismissal from service vide order dt. 29.9.2010 is legal, just and proper ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"
2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their respective representatives.
3. The concerned workman has filed statement of claim Ex.5. According to the second party workman, he was employed by the management in the post of 'Mistry' [Tool & Die Maker] w.e.f. 7.10.96. He was permanent employee of the first party and his service record was unblemished. The first party in & around the last week of September 2006 without any approval and sanction of the concerned authority had alleged to have fixed CCTV Camera in the Workshop and on 30.9.06 the Principal Director of the first party informed that the aforesaid CCTV Camera was removed / stolen by some person. The Principal Director made a complaint to Nehru Nagar Police Station, Kurla, Mumbai on 1.10.06. The Principal Director of the first party thereafter suspended Shri C.M. Narsude, Leader, Trade Union for his alleged involvement in removal / theft of CCTV Camera and initiated the enquiry against him. However, in the first week of November 2006, the Principal Director of the first party assured him that if he would give in writing and thereby admits his involvement in removal / theft of CCTV Camera and tender an unconditional apology to the Principal Director then the Principal Director would withdraw the enquiry initiated against Mr. Narsude. On the aforesaid assurance given by the Principal Director of the first party, second party agreed to give in writing that he was involved in the removal of alleged CCTV Camera and demanded apology. On 14.11.06, Principal Director of the first party forced the second party to write the aforesaid writing on paper and to sign the same on the proposal of assurance by the Principal Director. Thereafter on 21.11.06 and 1.12.06, the Principal Director of the first party forced the second party to give in writing by saying that the earlier writing was not sufficient and then submitted the writing given by the second party to the Investigating Officer of the police station. As such the first party has also served with charge sheet for alleged involvement of the second party in removal / theft of CCTV Camera. The second party workman replied the charge sheet, denying the allegations and the charges leveled against him.
4. According to the concerned workman, the Principal Director put the back date i.e. 10.1.07 on the written given by the concerned workman and same was shown as reply to the charge sheet dt. 8.1.07 in place of original reply given by the second party. However, the Enquiry Officer failed and neglected to consider the documentary evidence relied upon by the second party. As such the findings of the E.O. are perverse.
5. It is also a case of the concerned workman that the findings of the E.O. are based on no evidence. There is no proof to show that CCTV Camera was purchased and put in the workshop of the first party. He even recorded the conversation between the Principal Director of the first party and he himself which was recorded by him in his cell phone and same was produced as evidence during the enquiry before the E.O. However, the E.O. failed to consider the same while arriving at conclusion of enquiry proceedings.
6. It is also a case of the concerned workman that Principal Director of the first party had several times called the second party and he has produced the list of incoming calls showing that the Principal Director of the first party pressurized him to sign the documents. However, the E.O. did not consider the same. He also recorded the instructions and conversations between advocate Mrs. Archana Srivastava and he himself on his cell phone and the same was produced during the enquiry before the E.O. However, the E.O. neglected to consider the same.
7. It is also a case of the concerned workman that the enquiry was farce and even adequate subsistence allowance was not paid to him during the period of his suspension. The principles of natural justice were not at all followed while conducting the enquiry proceedings. The E.O. was biased against him. The enquiry conducted by the E.O. was not fair & proper and as such on the basis of perverse findings of the E.O. the Principal Director of the first party by his order dt. 29.9.10 dismissed him from services w.e.f. 29.9.10. He then preferred appeal dt. 14.10.10 before the Appellate Authority passed by the Principal Director of the first party. However, the Appellate Authority by its order dt. 11.3.11 rejected the appeal without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing.
8. It is thus the case of the concerned workman that he was dismissed from the services w.e.f. 29.9.10 by the Principal Director of the first party in gross violation of principles of natural justice and as such the order of dismissal dt. 29.9.10 is bad in law. He is therefore asking for reinstatement in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits, costs & compensation.
9. The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.9. It is contended that the concerned workman was issued charge sheets dt. 8.1.07 & 20.12.07 wherein he was appraised of several acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. Domestic enquiry was initiated and he was called by upon to plead & defend himself in the enquiry. He was given ample opportunity by the E.O. in the said enquiry and thereafter the E.O. after recording the entire proceedings of the enquiry gave his findings on 1.9.10 wherein the E.O. held that the charges leveled against 2nd party were proved satisfactorily. The first party on going through the notes & findings of the E.O. found no other6822 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] extenuating circumstances in favour of the concerned workman to take the lenient view in the matter and therefore by letter dt. 29.9.10 terminated the services of the 2nd party.
10. It is then contented by the first party that the management of the entire institute is controlled, managed and administered by the Principal Director who is appointed by the Govt. of India. Therefore the Principal Director in the interest of institute had decided to install CCTV Camera in the Workshop. The Principal employer has authority to install CCTV Camera inside the premises of the institute. The said installation work was completed on 13.9.06. However, the CCTV Camera so installed inside the Workshop was found to be missing on 13.9.06 and on seeing the scene last recorded by the camera, it was found that 2nd party i.e. concerned workman along with Shri Baglane were seen coming towards the camera. Accordingly, the first party informed to the police of the theft of said CCTV Camera and police made enquiry as regards the theft of camera.
11. It is then case of the first party that the 2nd party issued charge sheet enumerating the charges especially the act of theft which has taken place in the premises of first party on 13.9.06. The enquiry came to be instituted against the 2nd party. The 2nd party on 1.12.06 gave written statement wherein he has admitted having committed act of theft of CCTV Camera. As such the 2nd party has on his own by his letter dt. 10.1.07 gave written confession and he has also tendered an apology to that effect.
12. It is then contention of the first party that 2nd party workman has participated in the enquiry initiated against him. He had extensively cross examined witnesses of the first party. The enquiry has been conducted in most fair & reasonable manner as per the principles of natural justice. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the 2nd party by the E.O. to defend and plead himself in the enquiry. It is thus denied by the first party that the Principal Director had called the 2nd party with intention to compel him to sign on the documents and give false statement in the enquiry as alleged.
13. It is then contented by the first party that the subsistence allowance was paid to the concerned workman as per the provisions of law and therefore the said termination of the concerned workman on the basis of findings of E.O. is not illegal, improper or unjustified. Therefore the 2nd party workman is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service etc. it has thus sought dismissal of the reference.
14. Following issues are framed at Ex.10. Issue No.1 & 2 are to be treated as preliminary issues. Hence I reproduce the Issue No.1 & 2 along with my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
| Sr. No. | Issues | Findings |
| 1 | Whether the inquiry held against the workman under reference is fair and proper ? | Yes |
| 2. | Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse ? | No |
Reasons
Issue No.1 & 2.
15. The 2nd party workman has filed pursis Ex.14 contending therein that he does not desire to lead oral evidence on preliminary issues and then submitted notes of arguments on preliminary issues on the basis of enquiry proceedings.
16. It is well settled that if the service of the employee came to be terminated after proper domestic enquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusions reached at the enquiry are not perverse, the Industrial Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or correctness of the said conclusion. But at the same time mere form of the enquiry would not satisfy the requirements of industrial law and would protect the disciplinary action taken by the employer from challenge. The enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless,
(a) employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him.
(b) witnesses are examined ordinarily in presence of the employee in respect of charges.
(c) employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.
(d) he is given fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence.
(e) E.O. records findings with reasons for the same in his report.
Now it is to be seen whether in the present case these requirements are complied or not ?
17. From the evidence on record, it appears that copy of imputation of misconduct, list of documents relied upon and the list of witnesses on the basis of which charge has to be established were supplied to the concerned workman. In the enquiry proceedings, 2nd party workman was allowed to be defended by his advocate. So now the question creeps in whether the charge sheet suffers from vagueness ?
18. As a matter of fact, it appears that there were two charge sheets dt. 8.1.07 and 20.12.07. On perusal of these two charge sheets, it appears that the charges leveled against the 2nd party workman are specific to the effect that it was noticed that the CCTV Camera installed in the Workshop was missing and during interrogation, the concerned workman admitted that he was involved in the act of removing the said camera in combination with other workers namely S/Shri S.S. Sonde, V.T. Baglane, B.R. Kumbhar, Vicky Desai & V.S. Suryavanshi. As such the charge sheet clearly mentions[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6823 about misconduct as per clause 24 (2) of Certified Standing Orders whereby it is alleged that there was fraud, theft, dishonesty in connection with the employer's business and willful damage to or loss of employer's goods or properties and as per clause 24 to 29, it is alleged that false statement was given before the authority knowing it to be false.
19. In this respect it appears that even during the enquiry proceedings or in the statement of claim, the concerned workman has not raised objection on this ground, when infact it appears that 2nd party was issued charge sheet dt. 8.1.07 and the same was served upon him on the same day by hand delivery. 2nd party submitted his written explanation in reply to the said charge sheet through his letter dt. 10.1.07 which is at Ex.5 of the enquiry proceedings. 1st party issued notice of enquiry to the second party workman and 4 others by letter dt. 4.5.07 fixing the enquiry on 7.5.07 and thereafter the 2nd party workman and 4 other workmen who were charge sheeted gave the joint letter dt. 5.5.07 for postponement of the enquiry. It appears therefore that the enquiry proceedings are not disputed by the 2nd party workman and therefore the contention of the 2nd party workman that the charge sheet was vague does not stand to reason.
20. It is well settled that the ground of challenge of enquiry has to be pleaded and proved. The legality and fairness of the enquiry is challenged on the ground that the charge sheet is not issued by the competent authority. This challenge to the legality of the enquiry is without pleading in the statement of claim. Even if some anxious consideration is given to this objection raised by the concerned workman then it can be seen that the enquiry is to be conducted as per Certified Standing Orders. Clause 26.2 (a) of the Certified Standing Orders clearly provides that the Secretary or any other persons authorized to do so shall frame the charge sheet against the employee in writing setting out the alleged misconduct. The Certified Standing Orders placed on record, have been admitted by the second party workman. That apart it appears that resolution was passed at item No. 63 (8) of agenda giving details of delegation of powers in favour of Chairman & Principal Director as per Annexure – IX of agenda note. It cannot be disputed that the second party was employee in Group – C and Annexure – A. The said resolution clearly mentions that the disciplinary authority for Group – C employees is Secretary and the Appellate Authority would be Principal Director. The copy of minutes of 63 Govt. Counsel meeting is placed on record at Sr. 2 below Ex.19. Annexure – A at page 60 shows that for Group – C or equivalent post Secretary is the appointing authority and Principal Director is the Appellate Authority. It cannot be said therefore that the charge sheet is not issued by the competent authority since it has been issued by the Secretary who is the disciplinary authority so far as Group – C employees is concerned.
21. Learned Counsel for the 2nd party workman submitted that Secretary of the first party is not disciplinary authority of the second party who issued the charge sheet and therefore the disciplinary proceedings based upon charge sheet issued by the incompetent authority are bad in law. He seeks to rely on the decision in case of Ananta Krishnan V/S. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. – 1988 II CJ 526 to submit that if enquiring authority had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry such a defect will not be cured on account of fact that the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority. In that case as per General Insurance Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules, Manager has no authority to initiate the disciplinary action against the petitioner. The enquiry also covered larger period than was covered by the charge. It was observed that the enquiry was absolutely without jurisdiction and illegal.
22. In case of Desraj Verma V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh & Anr. 2003 III CLR 880. It was finding of the fact that there was no record to show that M.D. has delegated that authority to dismiss the petitioner who has challenged the authority of M.D. to terminate the services.
23. In the decision in case of Gostha Behari Jana V/S. Calcutta State Transport Corpn. & Ors. – 2000 I CLR 315. It was considered that the employee cannot be dismissed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. In that case the special officer who had passed the order of punishment on to the petitioner, appellant was subordinate to the Depot Manager who had appointed the petitioner. In the circumstances it was considered that the said order was illegal.
24. In the decision in case of Meghraj Ragobaji Navle & Ors. V/S. Addl. Controller, Nagpur – 2002 LAB IC 9151. The ratio of judgment is that the Addl. Controller is not the competent authority to terminate the services of temporary employees.
25. Here in the instant case the facts are different & distinguishable. As seen earlier clause No. 26/2 of Certified Standing Orders provides that Secretary or any other person authorized to do so shall frame a charge against employee. The Certified Standing Orders have been certified before the Dy. Commissioner to which the recognized union was party. The said Certified Standing Orders were published by notification No. 362 of 1991. As such clause 62/2(A) of Certified Standing Orders clearly provides that the Secretary is the disciplinary authority for issuing the charge sheet and taking necessary action against the second party workman who is Group – C employee. So in the facts of present case it cannot be said that the charge sheet is not issued by the competent authority.
26. The another ground raised by the concerned workman is that the Principal Director who has issued the first charge sheet dt. 8.1.07 was examined in the enquiry proceedings by the first party and in the circumstances the E.O. who paid the fees by the Director is bound to oblige the Director Shri S.P. Rasal and accordingly the E.O. obliged him.
27. This objection is also not sustainable in the facts of present case because as regards the charge of gherao to the Principal Director he was the only witness to prove the charges as he was the person who was gheraod. It was necessary for the Presiding Officer to examine him to prove the charge of gherao. Even otherwise the concerned workman was allowed to be defended by advocate who cross examined the Principal Director who appeared as witness of first party and that time also the concerned workman has not taken any objection during the enquiry proceedings nor this ground is pleaded in the statement of claim. Even otherwise it can be said that if Principal Director was examined in the enquiry6824 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] proceedings being the only witness to prove the charge of gherao then that will not be a ground to say that the enquiry was not fair & proper.
28. The next objection raised on behalf of the 2nd party workman is that the appointment of E.O. Dutta Patil who is an advocate is contrary to the Certified Standing Orders. It is because the E.Os were outside persons.
29. It is no doubt true that the Certified Standing Orders provides that the employee may be defended by his colleague or fellow employee considering the nature of charges leveled against him. Even the Certified Standing Orders do not bar the appointment of the outsiders or advocates as E.O. or P.O. Since the E.O. and P.O. are advocates and considering the nature of the charges leveled against the 2nd party workman he was also to be allowed to be defended by an advocate. It can be said therefore that no prejudice was caused to the concerned workman since he was also allowed to be defended by an advocate. Nowhere it has been pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman that such an appointment of E.O. or P.O. is barred by the Certified Standing Orders. On the contrary it appears that no any objection was raised during the enquiry proceedings in the context and for the first time in the arguments the objection was raised which is unacceptable.
30. The question is whether the prejudice is caused to the concerned workman because of the change of E.O. by the first party ? E.O. was appointed by an order dt. 20.6.10 and he conducted the enquiry proceedings thereafter from 29.6.10 to 21.7.10 on 3 dates. On 21.7.10, 2nd party workman closed his evidence and submitted that he does not want to lead any further evidence. It cannot be said therefore that due to change of the E.O. on account that he had to undergo bypass surgery, prejudice had caused to the concerned workman.
31. Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the conversion between the concerned workman and the representative of the management was recorded on 31.7.07 vide Ex.25 to 35 and the reply of the concerned workman to the charge sheet dt. 10.1.07 is back dated by the management after 31.7.07 and as such his reply dt. 10.1.07 was obtained by Principal Director of the first party under threat to the 2nd party workman and under assurance that the disciplinary authority would not take any action against him. However, on going through the record, it appears that the notice of the enquiry dt. 4.5.07 refers to reply to the charge sheet submitted by the 2nd party workman dt. 10.1.0. Even otherwise the E.O. has considered the objections raised by the concerned workman and therefore the E.O. is not expected to consider the contents of the 2nd party workman which were not raised by him during the enquiry proceedings.
32. As regards the findings of the E.O., it was tried to point out that the defence witness Shri Vijay Changlani in his evidence has stated that CCTV Camera was never purchased by the first party from his shop and this sort of evidence was not taken into consideration by the E.O. Then the submission is also to the effect that the first party by its letter dt. 1.10.06 lodged a complaint with Nehru Nagar Police Station regarding loss of CCTV Camera in the Workshop and the said complaint was withdrawn by the first party by its letter dt. 5.12.06. It is then submitted that the authentic list of conversion with the officers of first party has not been taken on record of the enquiry proceedings and even the E.O. ignored to give findings on these aspects. The said conversions among the 2nd party workman and advocate Ms. Archana Srivastava, Shri S.V. Rasal and Mrs. Nachane have not been taken on record and were ignored by the E.O. while giving his findings. With this the submission is that the findings of the E.O. are perverse and as such the E.O. did not apply his mind to the evidence and merely recorded ipsedixit that the charges are proved. In the context, reliance is also placed in the decision in case of Anil Kumar V/s. P.O. & Ors. – (1985) 3 SSC 378.
33. In this respect, having gone through the enquiry proceedings it can be seen that the 2nd party workman produced transcription of the audio recording without producing audio CD though the transcription was produced on 29.2.08. The time was sought by the 2nd party workman to produce the CD. Even thereafter the CD was not produced on 18.3.08. It was considered by the E.O. that the CD which was produced on 28.3.08 is not clear as regards the identification of the persons whose talks were recorded in the C.D.
34. Nextly, as regards the objections that the first party has withdrawn the police complaint, it was considered by the E.O. that the complaint was withdrawn for the reasons that the first party decided to hold preliminary proceedings against the 2nd party workman. The E.O. accordingly submitted his report on 1.9.10. As such on going through the report of E.O., it appears to me that his findings are based on evidence.
35. On going through the report of the E.O., it appears that it is well reasoned order holding charge No.1 to 4 as proved. It can be said therefore that the findings of the E.O. are based on material on record and the same are not perverse. The above issues are therefore answered accordingly as indicated against it in terms of above observations.
36. Hence I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Enquiry held is fair & proper.
2. Findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.
3. Parties are directed to argue and lead evidence on the point of quantum of punishment.
Date: 11.09.2018
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6825
नई दिल्ली, 5 नवम्बर, 2018
का.आ. 1773.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्र्दीय सरकार
मुख्य अभियंता (विद्युत), दूरसंचार विभाग, चंडीगढ़ एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:7373) नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों
के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्र्दीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं शर्म न्यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट
(संदर्भ संख्या 764/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्र्दीय सरकार को 30.10.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[फा. सं. जेड-22019/03/2013-आईआर(सी-II)]
राजेंर्द जोशी, उप निदेशक
New Delhi, the 5th November, 2018
S.O. 1773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID.No. 764/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Chief Engineer (Electrical), Department of Telecom, Chandigarh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.10.2018.
[F. No. Z-22019/03/2013-IR(C-II)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2, CHANDIGARH
ID No. 764/2005
Shri Upkar Singh s/o. Shri Sant Singh, C/o. Shri Amit Sharma, K.No.903, Sector 64, Phase XI, Mohali, Chandigarh.
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
The Chief Engineer (Electrical), Deptt. Of Telecom, SCO No,.332-34, Sector 64, Chandigarh.
…Management
AWARD
This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government vide letter No. L-40012/17/2004-IR(DU) dated 28.07.2004 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Telecom now known as BSNL in terminating the services of Shri Upkar Singh Ex-Peon w.e.f. 28/8/2001 without any notice and without complying with the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?
2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant Upkar Singh filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was engaged as a Peon by the Management on daily wage basis w.e.f. 4/4/1998 and his services were illegally terminated on 28/8/2001 without any notice or without payment of any compensation. The workman had completed more than 240 days of service in each calendar year. Even the persons junior to him were retained in service and thus, there is violation of Section 25-G of the Act. The management again appointed fresh persons without giving him any priority and violated Section 25-H of the Act. Prayer has been made for reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits.
3. The claim petition has been resisted by the Management who filed its reply, alleging that the claim is barred by time as the claimant is alleging his engagement in 1998 whereas the present claim has been filed on 27/9/2004, for which there is neither any records to show his engagement nor it can be verified. It has been alleged that the workman was engaged in the office of Chief Engineer in the month of April, 2000 on a stop gap arrangement where he worked upto June, 2001. According to them the workman worked for 181 days in the year 2000 and 120 days in 2001 (total for 301 days). Thereafter the contract was given to the Security Agency and the workman did not work for the6826 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Management. There was no requirement to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. In support of his case the workman appeared in the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. However, the Management did not lead any evidence and its evidence was closed vide order dated 17.12.2013.
5. Perusal of the record shows that in this my learned Predecessor had passed Award dated 6.6.2014 holding that the claimant./workman failed to prove that he was engaged as Peon on 4/4/1998 on daily wage basis and worked with the Management till 28/8/2001 and as such it can not be said that he continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year and as such he was held not to be entitled to any relief. The workman/claimant assailed the Award before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by filing CWP No.20536 of 2014. While observing that the claim petition vis-à-vis annexures P-2, P-6 and P-7, has not been appraised by the Labour Court and that the workman evidently had made necessary application for summoning the record, Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18/4/2008 set aside the aforesaid Award and remanded the matter back to this Tribunal with the direction to the Management to produce necessary material/attendance record, before the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter.
6. I have heard Shri Jaswinder Singh A/R for the workman and Shri Aish Babbar A/R for the Managemet and have gone through the records carefully.
7. There is no dispute about preposition of law that onus to prove that claimant was in the employment of Management is always on the workman/claimant and it is for the workman to adduce evidence to prove factum of his employment with the Management. Such evidence may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his/her appointment or engagement for that year to show that he/she has worked with the employer for 240 days or more in a Calendar year. In this regard, reference may be made to Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 as well as Director Fisheries Terminated Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Gavda (2012) 1 SCC 47.
8. There is hardly any dispute with the preposition of law as propounded in the aforesaid case. However, the factual scenario in the present case is bit different, inasmuch as the Management in its written statement has clearly admitted the factum of employment of the claimant inasmuch as it has been stated that the workman was engaged in the office of Chief Engineer in the month of April, 2000 on a stop gap arrangement where he worked upto June, 2001. As such, it clearly establishes relationship of employer-employee between the Management and claimant. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 Supreme Courtt 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Act which deals with the definition of "workman" has observed as under :-
"The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/ contract of
service, the quantum of wages/ pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There
is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on
regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on temporary,
part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours is not a
workman."
It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observations that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of "workman" as provided in Section 2(S) of the Act. In these circumstances, it stands proved that there existed relationship of employer-employee between the parties.
9. Equally settled is the position of law that when relationship of employer-employee stands proved between the parties, then onus will shift upon the employer/management to show that the claimant has not worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year or that the services of the claimant was terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is specific case of the workman/claimant that he was engaged as a Peon by the Management on daily wage basis w.e.f. 4.4.1998 and he worked as such till 28/8/2001 when his services were illegally terminated. He in fact had completed more than 240 days of service in each calendar year but despite that no notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to him prior to termination of his services by the Management. The affidavit filed by the workman /claimant is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. He has also filed on record copies/extracts of the Attendance Register for the months of January to March, 1999 as Ex.W-1/1 to Ex.W-1/3. In cross examination the claimant/workman has denied the suggestion that he had not completed 240 days or that there did not exist any dispute because he has been paid for the period he actually worked. I may mention that the Management has not adduced any evidence whatsoever to rebut the case of the claimant or to substantiate its stand that the workman/claimant who was engaged in April, 2000 only had worked for 181 days prior to discontinuation of his services on 28.8.2001. It is pertinent to mention here that the claimant/workman had filed an application dated 1.11.2006 for summoning/production of record by the Management viz. Attendance Register, Receipts/voucher books about receipt of wages. In the reply it has been stated that no attendance register was maintained for a person working as stop gap arrangement and moreover, the claimant/applicant was not engaged in the year 1998. The pages of attendance register as produced by the claimant appears to be manufactured documents. The original of Annexure W-2 is not available on record of the office. However, photocopies of receipts/ payment vouchers for the months from April,2000 to June, 2001 have been filed on record by the Management. It is also manifest from these receipts/payment vouchers that the claimant worked regularly[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6827 under the Management from April, 2000 to June, 2001, though he was paid wages only in respect of the official working days. The Management has not filed on record the Attendance Register or vouchers for the remaining period so as to rebut the claim of the claimant/workman that he worked with the Management w.e.f. 4.4.1998 till 28/8/2001 or to substantiate its own claim that the claimant had in fact worked only for 181 days in a calendar year, The Management has not produced the aforesaid record merely on the plea that the said record being old is not available. However, the Management has not filed any document to show that the requisite record being old has been weeded out and if so, by which order. In these circumstances, this Tribunal is constrained to draw adverse inference against the Management under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act for non production of the requisite records and to believe the version of the claimant that he worked with the Management for over 240 days in a calendar year.
10. There is another aspect of the matter. The claimant has filed on record photocopy of the letter dated 28/8/2001 which Shri Boota Singh, Supdt. Surveyor of Works (E) had confidentially sent to Shri P.K. Gupta, Chief Engineer (Electrical), BSNL, Chandigarh, giving explanation about engagement of casual labourers viz. Upkar Singh during ban period. Perusal of the said letter Annexure P-2 (now marked as Ex.C-1) shows that Shri Boota Singh, Sudpt.Surveyr of Works had apprised Chief Engineer (Electrical) that no instruction of BSNL Headquarter stand violated once all office staff including he (Chief Engineer) have been utilizing the services of Shri Upkar Singh continuously in absence of responsible person posted till date and that there is no such back door entry of any person, once there is no Peon for 3 Working Heads and 20 staff & minute by minute services of three persons as such being utilized since 1998 in absence of three peons very much required and lastly it was stated that on his (Chief Engineer's) direction dated 24/8/2001, Shri Upkar Singh has been asked not to attend office w.e.f. 28/8/2001. During cross-examination the claimant clarified that he could not show the original of aforesaid letter dated 28/8/2001 as the same is in the possession of the department but denied the suggestion that the said letter dated 28/8/2001 was fabricated & manufactured by him. The Management has not examined either Shri Boota Singh, the then Supdt. Surveyor of Works (E) or Shri P.K. Gupta, the then Chief Engineer (Electrical), BSNL, Chandigarh about the authenticity of the said letter, which clearly fortifies the claim of the claimant that his services which were being utilized from 1998, were terminated only on 28/8/2001. In view of this and as discussed above, the contention of the Management that the workman did not work for 240 days in a calendar year does not hold ground.
11. Now the vital question arises for consideration is whether termination of the claimant from his services by the Management w,e.f. 28.8-2001 is in accordance with law or in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. According to the testimony of the workman /claimant the work of peon on which he was working was of permanent nature and that his services were terminated by the Management in violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. After termination he had also approached the Management for reinstatement number of times as work was available with the Management but all in vain. Thereafter demand notice dated 10.9.2003 was filed before Conciliation Officer. It is neither the case of the Management that any notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the claimant prior to termination of his services w.e.f. 28/8/2001, nor any such evidence has been adduced on record by the Management. It is reiterated that the Management did not examine any witness to rebut the case of the claimant. In these circumstance, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the services of the claimant were terminated by the Management w.e.f. 28/8/2001 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
12. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.
13. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.
14. Now the residual question is whether the claimant/work is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service with full back wages. It is proved on record that claimant was continuously in the employment of the Management from March, 1998 to 28/8/2001 though on daily wage basis. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the workman is of perennial and regular nature which fact is also apparent from the document/letter dated 28/8/2001 (Ex.C-1). Though the workman/claimant has pleaded that he is unemployed from the date of his termination, however in his cross examination he clarified that he used to work on daily wages as and when the work was available to him. Just because the workman is doing some intermittent job as & when he finds work, it can not be said that he is gainfully employed to make livelihood for himself and his family. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the workman/claimant is gainfully employed.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,6828 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
17. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
18. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year."
19. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se illegal, particularly when the job is of regular and perennial nature and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after her termination by the Management. Award is passed accordingly.
Date : 17.10.18
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर, 2018
का.आ. 1774.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्र्दीय सरकार
निदेशक, एम्स, नई दिल्ली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:7373) नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट
औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्र्दीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं शर्म न्यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 25/2014) को
प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्र्दीय सरकार को 30.10.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. जेड-22019/03/2013-आईआर(सी-II)]
राजेंर्द जोशी, उप निदेशक
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2018
S.O. 1774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID. No. 25/2014) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6829 Labour Court-2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, AIIMS, New Delhi & others and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30.10.2018.
[No. Z-22019/03/2013-IR(C-II)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AVTAR CHAND DOGRA : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2 : CHANDIGARH
ID No. 25/2014
Mangal Singh, S/o. late Kalyan Singh, R/o. 71/1, LR Sharma Building, Lower Sangti Summer Hills, Shimla (HP).
…Workman/Claimant
Versus
1. The Director, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Senior Administrative Officer, Estate Section, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Care Taker, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur Bhawan Guest House, Summer Hills, Shimla -5
…Management
AWARD
This award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide its letter No. L-42012/129/2014-IR(DU) dated 28.10.2014 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the claimant Shri Mangal Singh leaving his job voluntarily w.e.f. 20.01.2014 and acceptance of Management is justified and legal ? If not, what relief the workman entitled to and from which date?''
2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant/workman Mangal Singh filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was engaged in the Guest House of the Management at Shimla as Cook on contract basis for a period of six months w.e.f. 1/5/2012 and his tenure was extended from time to time, though no appointment letter has been issued. He was performing his duties efficiently and regularly from 7 am to 9 pm. daily. It has been alleged that the workman had asked the Management N.3 for two days' leave on 3/1/2014 to get treatment of his ailing son who was admitted in Deen Dayal Memorial Hospital but instead of granting leave the Management No.3 asked him to go from the Guest House and his services were terminated on 4/1/2014 verbally and illegally in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. On next date when he reported for duty, he was not allowed to enter the Guest House and to perform his duty. It has also been alleged that though he completed more than 240 days in a calendar year, his services have been illegally terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Act , without issuing any show cause notice and without any compensation. Prayer has been made for reinstatement into service with full back wages.
3. Managements filed their joint written statement with the objection that the workman did not turn up to his work voluntarily w.e.f. 1/1/2014 without any notice in advance and he had sent a letter dated 20/1/2014, intimating that he had been engaged elsewhere and he has no objection on engagement of someone in his place and that he left the work voluntarily. As such there is no no violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition. Copy of the said letter dated 20/1/2014 has been filed on record.
4. The claimant filed rejoinder wherein he denied the allegations of the Management and reiterated his own cases as set up in the claim petition. It has been alleged that the claimant had never left his job at his own level, however, under the pressure of Caretaker of RKAK Guest Hue, he left the work of cook and as such this is a case of retrenchment and the Management had voluntarily terminated the services of the claimant without any reasons and rhyme. The Caretaker pressurised the claimant to sign on blank papers as the same was required for release of his monthly salary.
5. Perusal of the record shows that after filing of the written statement, the Management opted not to participate in the proceedings and hence the matter was proceeded ex parte against the Management vide order dated 28/6/2016.
6830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]6. In order to prove his case, the claimant filed his evidence by way of affidavit (now marked as Ex.C-1) and his testimony is in line with the averments made in the claim petition. In his pleadings and affidavit filed on record, the claimant has specifically deposed that he had never left his job rather under the pressure of Caretaker of RKAK, Guest House to sign on blank paper, as same was required by the Management at Delhi for release of his monthly salary. According to his testimony, under the genuine belief, the workman had signed on the blank paper wherein reason for leaving the job bty some other person was written. He also deposed that the Management had voluntarily terminated his services without any reason and rhyme. The testimony of the claimant has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. The Management has neither adduced any evidence in rebuttal to prove its case that the workman/claimant had himself abandon the job, nor has proved the letter dated 20/1/2014 allegedly written by the workman voluntarily. Under these circumstances, it can not be concluded that the claimant had himself abandon the job of the Management w.e.f. 20/1/2014 and that his services were legally terminated by the Management. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that before terminating the services of the workman, any notice or compensation in lieu of notice period was given to the workman. This amounts to violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
7. There is long line of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of various High Courts that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are mandatory in nature and termination of the workman from services in derogation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act will render action of the Management to be illegal and void under the law.
8. Since there is no evidence on record that any valid notice was issued by the Management to the workman at the time of termination or in lieu of such notice, any compensation was paid to him, as such action of the Management in terminating the services of the workman is held to be illegal and void.
9. Now the residual question for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any incidental relief of payment of back wages and/or reinstatement of service. It is proved on record that claimant was in the employment of the Management before his termination on 20/1/2014. There is no show cause notice or memo issued to the claimant/workman by the Management. Moreover, the job of the cook in the Guest House for which post the claimant was engaged, is/was of perennial and regular nature. During the course of arguments, the claimant was present before this Tribunal and he stated that he is not gainfully employed after his termination. The Management has not adduced any evidence to show that the claimant is gainfully employed somewhere else or that he is in a position to make his both ends meet by doing any work. Even if it is assumed that the claimant is doing some intermittent or adhoc work to make his both ends meet, that would not itself amount to gainful employment. .
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya" reported as (2013) 10 SCC 324 has held as under :
"The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are :
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then I has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman wads gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she wads drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that different expressions are used for describing the consequence of termination of a workman's service/employment/engagement by way of retrenchment without complying with the mandate of Section 25F of the Act. Sometimes it has been termed as ab initio void, sometimes as illegal per se, sometime as nullity and sometimes as non est. Leaving aside the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that termination of service of an employee by way of retrenchment without complying with the requirement of giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of Section 25F (a) and (b) has the effect of rendering the action of the employer and nullity and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated. (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1 Panipat (2010) 5 SCC 497).
12. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (1979) 2 SCC 80 held that relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the act of employer is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary, in that eventuality the workman is required to be reinstated, with full back wages. Plain common sense also dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen alongwith payment of back wages.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 683113. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudan Singh, reported as 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 observed as under :-
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination of service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. If the workman has rendered a considerable period of service and his services are wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in view the fact that at this age and the qualification possessed by him he may not be in a position to get another employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, the award of back wages for the complete period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the award, which our experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calander year."
14. Having regard to the legal position as discussed above and the fact that the claimant was performing duty to a post of regular and perennial nature, this Tribunal is of the firm view that the claimant herein is entitled for reinstatement into service on the same post, with 50 per cent back wages, iinasmuch as termination of the claimant/workman is per-se illegal and the claimant/workman is not gainfully employed anywhere since after his termination by the Management. Award is passed accordingly.
Date 17.10.18
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1775.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्र्दीय सरकार
पोस्ट-मास्टर जनरल, हेड पोस्ट ऑफिस, पाली और अन्य एवं उनके कर्मचारी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:7373) नियोजकों और उनके
कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्र्दीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं शर्म न्यायालय, जोधपुर के
पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 01/2016) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्र्दीय सरकार को 06.09.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40011/25/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
राजेंर्द जोशी, उप निदेशक
New Delhi, the 27th November, 2018
S.O. 1775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 01/2016) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Post-Master General, Head Post Office, Pali & others and their workman, which were received by the Central Government on 06.09.2018.
[No. L-40011/25/2014-IR (DU)]
RAJENDRA JOSHI, Dy. Director
अनुबंध
औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जोधपुर (राज.)
पीठासीन अधिकारी - श्री अजय कुमार शर्मा-1 आर.एच.जे.एस.
औद्योगिक विवाद (केन्द्रीय) संख्याः 01/2016
भॅवरसिंह पुत्र स्व.श्री रामपाल सिंह, उम्र 52 वर्ष, भूतपूर्व दैनिक वेतन
भोगी वाटरमैन (ग्रुप-डी कर्मचारी), पी.एम.पाली हेड पोस्ट आफिस
पाली मण्डल, पाली मारवाड, निवासी 545 बापू विस्तार,पाली मारवाड.
...प्रार्थी
बनाम6832 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. पोस्टमास्टर जनरल, हेड पोस्ट आफिस पाली मारवाड
2. सुप्रिन्टेन्डेन्ट, पोस्ट आफिस, पाली मारवाड
3. पोस्ट मास्टर, एच0ओ0 पाली मारवाड
4. यूनियन आफ इण्डिया जरिये सेक्रेटरी
डिपास्र्टमेन्ट आफ पोस्ट, मिनिस्ट्री आफ कम्यूनिकेशन,
डाक भवन न्यू दिल्ली ।
...अप्रार्थीगण
उपस्थितिः
1 प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री आलोक डोभाल उप.।
2 अप्रार्थीगण प्रतिनिधि श्री शहनाज खॉ उप.।
अधिनिर्णयः
दिनांकः 30.06.2017
केन्द्र सरकार की ओर से जरिये अधिसूचना नम्बर एल-40011/ 25/2014-आईआर (डीयू) दिनांक 02.02.2015 द्वारा जो विवाद अधिसूचित किया गया है वह इस प्रकार है-
''क्या प्रबन्धन श्रीमान पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल, हेड पोस्ट आफिस, सुप्रीन्टेंन्डेंट पोस्ट आफिस व पोस्ट मास्टर एच ओ पाली मारवाड राज0 द्वारा कर्मकार श्री भॅवरसिंह पुत्र स्वश्री रामपाल सिंह को दिनांक 5.12.2011 से सेवा से पृथक करने की कार्यवाही वैधानिक एवं न्यायसंगत है, यदि नहीं तो प्रार्थी किस राहत का और कब से पाने का हकदार है ?''
संक्षेप में तथ्य इस प्रकार हैः-प्रार्थी ने अधिसूचित विवाद के सम्बन्ध में अपना मांग पत्र पेश किया। प्रार्थी ने अपने मांग पत्र में कहा है कि प्रार्थी-श्रमिक ने अप्रार्थी नियोजक संस्थान में दैनिक वेतनभोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में वाटरमैन के रूप में सन 1990 से दिनांक 5.12.2011 तक अपनी सेवाए अर्पित की। प्रार्थी एक श्रमिक और अप्रार्थी नियोजक संस्थान एक वाणिज्यक व औद्योगिक संस्थान है जिन पर श्रम कानून लागू होते है। प्रार्थी-श्रमिक के साथ साथ शिवसिंह , शिवलाल पियोन, जसवन्तसिंह बाबू कार्यरत थे। प्रार्थी-श्रमिक को भुगतान पेमेन्ट वाउचर से श्रमिक के पदनाम से किया जाता था। प्रार्थी-श्रमिक द्वारा जब समझोता वार्ता के लिये उपस्थिति रजिस्टर की फोटो प्रति व भुगतान वाउचर की फोटो प्रति अप्रार्थी संस्थान से मांगी तो प्रार्थी-श्रमिक को उपलब्ध नहीं करवाई गई जिस पर सूचना के अधिकार के तहत सूचना मांगने पर उपलब्ध करवाई गई। दिनांक 7.6.2007 को जारी आदेश के अनुसार वाटर मैन को मिलने वाले वाटर भत्ते के सम्बन्ध में था उस समय वाटर मैन के पद पर नियुक्त श्रीमती कलावती सेवानिवृत्त हो चुकी है तथा तत्कालीन अधीक्षक श्री सोमबंशी ने प्रार्थी-श्रमिक को मुख्य कार्यालय, पाली में वाटरमैन के पद पर लगाया इस प्रकार प्रार्थी-श्रमिक ने हेड आफिस में वाटरमैन के पद पर कार्य करना प्रारम्भ किया। प्रार्थी के मुख्य कार्यालय के उपस्थिति रजिस्टर में वाटरमैन के पद पर हस्ताक्षर किये जाने लगे। प्रार्थी-श्रमिक के साथ साथ प्रकाश, चुन्नीलाल, भॅवरलाल, मोहनसिंह, गणेशराम, बींजाराम, तेजसिंह भी उपस्थिति रजिस्टर में अपने हस्ताक्षर करते थे। प्रार्थी-श्रमिक का भुगतान पेमेन्ट वाउचर से किया जाता था कतथा डी ए का भुगतान भी समय समय पर किया जाता था। प्रार्थी-श्रमिक के विधि विरूद्ध सेवा से पृथक के समय भुगतान वाउचर संख्या 27 द्वारा भुगतान दिनांक 2.12.2011 को किया गया था। प्रार्थी को अपने उच्चाधिकारियों से कहा कि उसे विभाग में कार्य करते हुये 20 वर्ष से अधिक समय हो गया है उसकी सेवा नियमित क्यों नही की जा रही है तब प्रार्थी को आश्वासन दिया गया कि कार्यवाही चल रही है । इस पर प्रार्थी की सेवाए नियमित करने की बजाय उसे दिनांक 5.12.2011 को सेवामुक्त कर दिया गया। प्रार्थी ने सेवा से पृथक करने से पूर्व 240 दिन निरन्तर कार्य किया उसे धारा 25 एफ के तहत न तो मुआवजा दिया, न नोटिस दिया न ही प्रार्थी-श्रमिक से वरिष्ठता सूची प्रकाशित की। प्रार्थी-श्रमिक से कनिष्ठ कर्मचारियों को सेवा में रखा गया। इस प्रकार औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम,1947 की धारा 25-एफ,25-जी एवं 25-एच तथा नियम 77 व 78 के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन किया गया है। प्रार्थी ने भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय, अजमेर में दिनांक 18.3.2014 को समझोता वार्ता हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया लेकिन दिनांक 20.5.2014 को अप्राथी नियोजक संस्थान ने सेवा में बहाल करने से मना कर दिया। प्रार्थी-श्रमिक 21 वर्र्षाें से वाटरमैन के पद पर अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य कर रहा है
प्रार्थी की ओर से निवेदन किया है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक के मौखिक आदेश दिनांक 5.12.2011 को निरस्त फरमाया जावे तथा प्रार्थी-श्रमिक को सेवा की निरन्तरता में वेतन तथा सभी पुनर्लाभ के साथ सेवा में प्रतिस्थापित करवाया जावे ।
अप्रार्थी ने अपने जवाब में कहा है कि प्रार्थी के मांग पत्र में अंकित तथ्यों से इंकार किया है और कहा है कि प्रार्थी प्रधान डाकघर पाली में पूर्णतया बाह्य व्यक्ति के रूप में पानी भरने का कार्य कर रहा था जिसको पानी भत्ता दिया जाता था उसको किसी भी पद पर विभाग में नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई, प्रार्थी प्रधान डाकघर पाली में पानी भरने का कार्य करता था जिसे पानी भत्ता दिया जाता था जो निर्धारित दर से दिया जाता था । डाक महानिदेशालय नई दिल्ली के पत्र दिनांक 19.11.2010 की अनुपालना में पानी भरने की व्यवस्था उपलब्ध एमडीएस स्टाफ से करवाने के निर्देशानुसार प्रार्थी से पानी भरवाना बन्द कर दिया। प्रार्थी को माह के अन्त में किये गये कार्य के अनुसार पानी भत्ता एसीजी-17 पर किया जाता था तथा प्रार्थी के नाम से कोई भुगतान वाउचर अलग से जारी नही किया जाता था न ही उपस्थिति बाबत् कोई विशेष रजिस्टर रखा जाता था। पाली प्रधान डाकघर में वाटरमैन का कोई पद नहीं था तो उस पर उपस्थिति रजिस्टर में हस्ताक्षर करवाना स्वीकार नहीं है। प्रार्थी मात्र बाह्य व्यक्ति के रूप में कार्यरत था और उसे पानी भत्ता दिया जाता था तथा विभागीय आदेशानुसार यह व्यवस्था बन्द की गई थी। बाह्य व्यक्तियों के सम्बन्ध में कोई वरिष्ठता सूची जारी नहीं की जाती थी और न ही किसी कानून का उल्लंघन ही किया गया है। प्रार्थी से नियमानुसार ही कार्य कराया जाता था और नियमानुसार विभागीय आदेशों से ही उक्त व्यवस्था बन्द की गई थी। प्रार्थी की सेवाऐ डाक महानिदेशालय, नई दिल्ली के पत्र दिनांक 19.11.2010 अनुसार अक्टूबर 2011 से समाप्त की गई।
अप्रार्थी ने अपने जवाब में निवदेन किया है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत मांग पत्र खारिज फरमाया जावे ।
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6833प्रार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थीगण की ओर से प्रस्तुत जबाब का जबाबुल जबाब प्रस्तुत करते हुये मांग पत्र में वर्णित कथनों की पुष्टि की ।
प्रार्थी की ओर से साक्ष्य में स्वयं भॅवरसिंह का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया। जिस पर अप्रार्थीगण ने प्रतिपरीक्षण किया। अप्रार्थी की ओर से साक्ष्य में डी आर सुथार, अधीक्षक डाकघर, पाली मण्डल,पाली मारवाड का शपथ-पत्र प्रस्तुत किया। जिस पर प्रार्थी ने प्रतिपरीक्षण किया। प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रदर्श-1 से 8 दस्तावेज की प्रतियां प्रस्तुत की गई। अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रदर्श-ए1 दस्तावेज की प्रति प्रस्तुत की गई।
दोनों पक्षों की बहस सुनी गई पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया।
अधिसूचित विवाद पर प्रार्थी की ओर से जो साक्ष्य आई है उसमें स्वयं प्रार्थी भॅवरसिंह ने अपने शपथ पत्र में सशपथ यह कथन किया है कि वह अप्रार्थी नियोजक संस्थान में सन 1990 से दिनाक 5.12.2011 तक वाटरमैन के पद पर कार्यरत था और उसने लगातार उक्त अवधि में बिना किसी व्यवधान के सेवाये दी । प्रार्थी एक श्रमिक है और अप्रार्थी संस्था उद्योग है। प्रार्थी का कहना है कि उसकी डयूटी सुबह 8 बजे से शाम 5 बजे तक थी उसके साथ शिवसिंह, शिवलाल पियोन एवं जसवन्तसिंह बाबू वगैरह कार्य करते थे उसको वेतन का भुगतान पेमेन्ट वाउचर से किया जाता था जिसमें उसका नाम पद दर्शाया जाता था। पत्रावली में उक्त वाउचर संलग्न है। प्रार्थी को अप्रेल, 2008 से दिसम्बर 2011 तक के भुगतान वाउचर की प्रमाणित प्रति उपलब्ध करवाई गई है। दिनाक 7.6.2007 को जारी आदेश के अनुसार वाटरमैन को मिलने वाले वाटर एलाउन्स के सम्बन्ध में था। मांग सूची के साथ उक्त आदेश की प्रतिलिपि को भी पेश किया है। नियोजक संस्था द्वारा डी ए का भुगतान भी समय समय पर किया जाता था। सेवा समाप्ति के समय उसे पेमेन्ट वाउचर संख्या 27 दिनांक 2.12.2011 के द्वारा भुगतान किया गया। उसका कहना है कि उसने 20 वर्ष से अधिक अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य करते हुये हो गये है लेकिन उसको नियमित नहीं किया गया है और दिनांक 5.12.2011 को सेवा में नियमित करने की बजाय उसे सेवा से टर्मिनेट कर दिया गया है। उसका कहना है कि मामले में औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम,1947 की धारा 25-एफ,25-जी एवं 25-एच व नियम 77 व 78 की पालना नहीं की गई है। अतः सेवा पृथक आदेश निरस्त किये जाने योग्य है। प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रदर्श 1 से 8 दस्तावेज पेश किये है। प्रार्थी से अप्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि द्वारा प्रतिपरीक्षण किया गया है। जिसमें उसने कहा है कि कोई लिखित नियुक्ति पत्र पेश नहीं किया है क्योंकि उसे नहीं दिया गया। नौकरी के लिये प्रार्थी ने लिखित निमन्त्रण नहीं भेजा, उसने कोई लिखित प्रार्थना पत्र वाटरमैन के पद पर नियुक्त करने के लिये अप्रार्थी को नहीं दिया। प्रार्थी भॅवरसिह से इस बिन्दु पर कोई जिरह नहीं की गई है कि उसने 1990 से दिनांक 5.12.2011 तक वाटरमैन के पद पर अप्रार्थी संस्थान में कार्य करते हुये निरन्तर सेवाऐ नहीं दी हो । इस बिन्दु पर भी कोई जिरह नहीं की गई है कि प्रार्थी को वेतन का भुगतान जरिये वाउचर किया जाता था जो प्रार्थी ने दस्तावेज के रूप में पेश किये है। प्रार्थी ने लगातार सेवा में 240 दिवस से अधिक अवधि में एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में कार्य किया है। प्रार्थी के 21 वर्ष की सेवा अवधि में कोई सेवा व्यवधान रहा हो ऐसा कोई प्रतिपरीक्षण नहीं किया गया है। मात्र नियुक्ति पत्र के सम्बन्ध में जिरह की गइ है अन्य कोई सारभूत जिरह नहीं की गई है।
अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री डी आर सुथार को साक्ष्य में पेश किया गया है जिन्होंने यह कहा है कि प्रार्थी प्रधान डाकघर कन्टीजेन्ट पेड व्यक्ति के तौर पर पानी भरने का कार्य करता था जिसे पानी भत्ता दिया जाता था किसी पद पर उसकी नियुक्ति नहीं की गई थी। कन्टीजेन्ट फण्ड से प्रार्थी को वेतन का भुगतान किया गया हो ऐसा कोई आदेश अथवा ऐसा कोई रिकॉर्ड अप्रार्थी की ओर से पेश नही किया गया है। यह भी स्वीकार किया गया है कि पाली प्रधान डाकघर में कन्टीजेन्ट पैड व्यवस्था पर पानी भरने का कार्य कर रहा था जो अब मल्टी टास्क स्टाफ से करवाया जा रहा है । प्रार्थी से पानी भरवाना बन्द कर दिया गया है। प्रार्थी का सेवापृथक्करण आदेश जारी नहीं किया गया है। प्रार्थी द्वारा लम्बे समय से पानी भरने का कार्य करना स्वीकार किया है। दिनांक 7.6.2007 पानी भत्ता प्रतिमाह भुगतान करने बाबत् मात्र एक स्वीकृति आदेश थे इस में किसी पद एवं प्रार्थी के नाम का विवरण अंकित नहीं है। क्योंकि प्रार्थी सन 1990 से लगातार कार्यरत था। प्रार्थी बाहरी व्यक्ति के रूप में प्रधान डाकघर, पाली पर पानी भरने का कार्य कर रहा था। अप्रार्थी के इस गवाह से प्रार्थी के प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई हे। जिसमें उसने यह स्वीकार किया है कि दिनांक 16.2.2016 को बतौर अधीक्षक डाक पाली मण्डल में कार्यरत है। जिरह में उसने स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी पोस्ट मास्टर पाली के अण्डर में पानी भरने का काम करता था। प्रार्थी को उनके यहां पानी पिलाने की जगह उनके यहां कन्टीजेन्ट (आकस्मिक रूप से ) लगाया गया था। प्रार्थी को माह की समाप्ति पर वेतन देते थे और नियमानुसार उसे डीए भी दिया जाता था। यह सेलेरी हेड से दिया जाता था। प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श 1 से 4 के पेज संख्या 8 से 65 उनके विभाग के वाउचर है यह स्वीकार किया है जिसमें लिखी इबारत रही है। यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि कोई नियुक्ति पत्र जारी नहीं किया गया है मौखिक रूप से लगाया गया था। हटाने से पूर्व कोई नोटिस नहीं दिया गया। यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी ने अपनी नियुक्ति तिथि 1990 से दिनांक 2.12.2011 उसे हटाने जाने तक बिना किसी व्यवधान के उनके यहा पानी भरने का काम किया है।
उपरोक्त दोनों पक्षों की साक्ष्य से स्थिति यह उभर कर आती है कि स्वीकृत रूप से प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी संस्थान में वाटरमैन के पद पर पानी भरने व पानी पिलाने का कार्य करता था। प्रार्थी को वेतन मद से वेतन दिया जाता था, यह भी अप्रार्थी संस्थान की ओर से स्वीकार किया गया है। यह भी स्वीकार किया गया है कि सन 1990 से दिनांक 5.12.2011 तक प्रार्थी ने अनवरत रूप से वाटर मैन के पद पर सेवाए दी है और उसने 21 वर्ष की अवधि में अप्रार्थी संस्थान ने नियमित नहीं किया है बल्कि उसे दिनांक 5.12.2011 को बिना किसी नोटिस के सेवा से पृथक कर दिया है। प्रार्थी का कार्य असन्तोषप्रद रहा हो ऐसा भी अप्रार्थी की ओर से कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है। प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध कोई अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही की गई हो ऐसा भी अप्रार्थी का मामला नहीं है। प्रार्थी द्वारा की गई पानी की सेवा लगातार चलने वाली सेवाओं में से एक है। अप्रार्थी संस्थान में न केवल स्टाफ को पानी पिलाने की आवश्यकता होती है बल्कि वहां आने वाले आम ग्राहक को पानी पिलाना अत्यन्त आवश्यक है। प्रार्थी को हटाकर मल्टी टास्क स्टाफ फोर्स से काम लेना और हटाने से पूर्व उसे कोई छंटनी मुआवजा नहीं देना और दिनांक 5.12.2011 को उसे बिना किसी लिखित सेवा समाप्ति आदेश के मौखिक रूप से सेवा से पृथक करना औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम,1947 की धारा 25एफ का घोर उल्लंघन है। अप्रार्थी संस्था की ओर से प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक किये जाने से पूर्व कोई वरिष्ठता सूची नहीं बनाई गई है। प्रार्थी को निकालने के पश्चात् अन्य व्यक्ति को मल्टी टास्क फोर्स वाले को पानी पिलाने व पानी भरने के लिये रखा गया है। अतः प्रार्थी के मामले में अप्रार्थी संस्था ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम,1947 की धारा 25-जी एवं 25-एच एवं नियम 77 व 78 का भी उल्लंघन किया है।
6834 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]अप्रार्थी की ओर से यह तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि प्रार्थी आकस्मिक कर्मचारी हजै और उसकी नियुक्ति पार्ट टाईम की गई है अतः उसे नियमित सेवा में नहीं लिया जा सकता। मेरी राय में यह तर्क खारिज किये जाने योग्य है। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा ए आई आर 2011 एस सी डब्ल्यू पेज 3455 देवेन्द्रसिंह बनाम म्यूनिसिपल काउन्सिल सानोर में यह सिद्वान्त प्रतिपादित किया गया है कि पार्टटाईम कर्मचारी, अनुबन्धित कर्मचारी, अस्थाई व आकस्मिक कर्मचारी औद्योगिक विवाद के तहत 'श्रमिक' की श्रेणी में आते है।
माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा 2016 लेबर इण्ड0 केसेज पेज 3174 चीफ जनरल मैनेजर एस बी आई बनाम केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चैन्नई के मामले में यह सिद्धान्त प्रतिपादित किया कि Employee rendered 20 Years of service, termination of his services on ground that the work was outsourced without complying with provisions of S. 25F. Not proper because even if an employee is temporary or daily wager, if he has successfully worked for 240 days in preceding calendar year, employee is entitled to benefit of provisions of S. 25F.
माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा 2009 एस सी पेज 309 डिविजनल मैनेजर न्यू इण्डिया एश्योरेन्स कम्पनी बनाम ए0 शंकरालिंगम, 2012 (132) एफ एल आर पेज 571 कानसिंह बनाम जिला आर्युवेद आफिसर व अन्य, माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय राजस्थान राज्य बनाम गिरीराज प्रसाद के मामले में व अन्य निर्णयों में पार्टटाईम कर्मचारी को भी श्रमिक का दर्जा दिया गया है अतः प्रार्थी औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम,1947 के तहत संरक्षण प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है।
उपरोक्त विवेचन व विधिक प्रावधानों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुये प्रार्थी को दिनांक 5.12.2011 को सेवा से पृथक करना उचित एवं वैध नहीं है। प्रार्थी का मौखिक सेवा पृथक आदेश दिनांक 5.12.2011 अपास्त किये जाने योग्य है। प्रार्थी जिस पद से हटाया गया है उसी वाटरमैन के पद पर पुनः पूर्वसेवा शर्तो के आधार पर पुनःनियुक्ति प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है। प्रार्थी की सेवाए निरन्तर माने जाने योग्य है। प्रार्थी अधिसूचित विवाद की तिथि दिनांक 2.2.2015 से पूर्वभृति के रूप में उसको नियुक्त किये जाने तक 50 प्रतिशत पूर्वभृति राशि अप्रार्थीगण से प्रार्थी को दिलाई जाना उचित समझा जाता है। प्रार्थी समस्त परिलाभ उसकी नियुक्ति दिनांक से प्राप्त करने योग्य पाया जाता है।
अधिनिर्णयः
अतः यह अधिनिर्णय किया जाता है कि -
1. प्रार्थी श्री भॅवरसिंह पुत्र स्वश्री रामपाल सिंह को नियोजक प्रबन्धन श्रीमान पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल, हेड पोस्ट आफिस, सुप्रीन्टेंन्डेंट पोस्ट आफिस व पोस्ट मास्टर एच ओ पाली मारवाड राज. द्वारा दिनांक 5.12.2011 को सेवा पृथक किया जाना उचित एवं वैध नहीं है।
2. प्रार्थी को तुरन्त सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित किया जावे। प्रार्थी की सेवाए निरन्तर मानी जावे।
3. प्रार्थी अधिसूचित विवाद की तिथि दिनांक 2.2.2015 से उसको पुनः नियुक्त किये जाने तक 50प्रतिशत पूर्वभृति राशि अप्रार्थी से प्रार्थी को दिलाई जाती है। प्रार्थी समस्त परिलाभ उसकी नियुक्ति दिनांक से प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है।
इस अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को प्रेषित किया जावे।
यह आदेश मेरे द्वारा लिपिबद्व करवाया जाकर आज दिनांक 30.06.2017 को खुले न्यायालय में हस्ताक्षर कर उद्घोषित किया गया।
अजय कुमार शर्मा-1, न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली, 29 नवम्बर, 2018
का.आ. 1776.—राष्ट्रपति, र्शी मृनमोय कु मार भ(cid:7349)ाचार्जी, पीठासीन अधिकारी, के न्र्दीय सरकार औद्योगिक
अधिकरण-सह-शर्म न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी को दिनांक 22.11.2018 से छ: माह तक की अवधि अथवा नियमित आधार पर पद
के भरे जाने तक अथवा अगले आदेश तक, जो भी पहले हो के न्र्दीय सरकार (cid:6955)द्योगिक अधिकरण सह-शर्म-न्यायालय,
आसनसोल के पीठासीन अधिकारी के पद का अतिरिक्त प्रभार सौपते हैं।
[सं. अ-11016/03/2015-सीएलएस-II]
अजय मलिक, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 29th November, 2018
S.O. 1776.—The President is pleased to entrust the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cul-Labour Court, Asansol to Shri Mrinmoy Kumar Bhattacharjee, presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati for a period of six months with effect from 22.11.2018 or till the post is filled on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
[No. A-11016/03/2015-CLS-II]
AJAY MALIK, Under Secy.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6835नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1777.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्र्दीय सरकार मेसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:7373) नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्र्दीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं शर्म न्यायालय-2, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 3/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्र्दीय सरकार को 20.11.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-11011/55/2004-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018
S.O. 1777.—In ursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airports Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20.11.2018.
[No. L-11011/55/2004-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT: M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer/Judge
COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/ 3 of 2014
Arising out of
[Reference No. CGIT-2/ 17 of 2007]
PARTIES:
1. Shri Rushikesh Chandrakant Kolambekar,
2. Shri Dayanad R. Khavale,
3. Shri Bajrang Vitthal Mane,
4. Shri Vinod Harishchandra Jadhav,
5. Shri Syryakant Giridhar Gawade,
6. Rajesh Shrirang Owale,
7. Shri Parshuram P. Yernalekar,
8. Shri Sandeep Vasant Shendge,
9. Shri Swapnil Haridas Solse,
10. Shri P. Velmurgan,
11. Shri Amol R. Tambe,
12. Shri Manoj V. Tanpure,
13. Shri Madan Krishna Vengurlekar,
14. Shri Zahir Z. Ahmed
C/o. Shri J.H. Sawant,
Advocate
Mumbai . : COMPLAINANTS6836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s
Airports Authority of India, Through The Regional Executive Director, Having office at New Airport Colony, Vileparle [East], Mumbai- 400 099. : OPPOSITE PARTY
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE Complainants
: Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY
: No Appearance
Mumbai, dated the 22nd October, 2018
AWARD
1. This is an application under Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Opposite Party on the ground that the Opposite Party has refused the work, wages and all consequential benefits to the complainants covered and concerning the adjudicating proceedings in Reference No. CGIT-2/ 17 of 2007 w.e.f. 3.4.2007. As such the Opposite Party has altered the conditions of services of the workmen to their prejudice during the pendency of said adjudicating proceedings.
2. It is the case of the Complainants that by order dt. 9.2.2007 the Central Govt. referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to this tribunal in the following schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the industrial dispute by the Airports Kamgar Union against the management of Airport Authority of India for permanent absorption of Sh. Rushikesh C. Kolambekar and 13 other workmen [list attached] justified ? If so, what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"
3. The Opposite Party had contravened the provisions made u/s. 33 of I.D. Act, 1947 and has altered the conditions of services of the complainants during the pendency of the proceedings by refusing the complaints work, wages and consequential benefits w.e.f. 3.4.07 till date without express permission of this tribunal. The Opposite Party and its agents employed the other persons in place of complainants to do regular nature of work of the Opposite Party that was being attended by the complainants through agents of the Opposite Party in the premises of Opposite Party and under direct supervision of Opposite Party who was real employer of the complainants. The complainants are in continuous employment of the Opposite Party and therefore they have been subjected to unemployment, hardship and unjust by the Opposite Party. They are therefore asking to declare that the Opposite Party has contravene the provisions of section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947 by refusing work, wages and consequential benefits to the complainants / workmen w.e.f. 3.4.07 during the pendency of adjudication proceedings under Reference No. CGIT-2/ 17 of 2007 and direct the Opposite Party to make the payment of wages to the complainants / workmen w.e.f. 3.4.07 and allow them to resume their duties.
4. Opposite Party remained absent though duly served. No say or written statement is filed by the Opposite Party. Complainants have filed documents and affidavit of concerned workmen. There is no cross-examination directed against him. As such complaint proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Party.
5. Following points arise for my determination and my findings thereon for the reasons to follow are as under
| Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
| 1. | Whether it is proved by the complainants that the Opposite Party has refused the work, wages & benefits to the complainants and concerning the adjudication proceedings in Reference No. CGIT-2/ 17 of 2007 w.e.f. 3.4.2007 without permission of the tribunal ? | Yes |
| 2. | What order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
Point No.1:
6. The complainants have relied upon following documents in respect of their work with the Opposite Party and dis-continuation of their services by the Opposite Party w.e.f. 3.4.07 i.e. during the pendency of adjudication proceedings before this tribunal in Reference No. CGIT-2/ 17 of 2007. The documents are produced below Ex.6 / 1 to 30. The document at Sr. No. 1 & 2 are payment vouchers showing that AAI made the payment to contractors for being paid to the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6837 workers namely Mane, Kaule, Gavande & Jadhav. Letter dt. 4.9.01 produced below Ex.6 / 3 shows that daily wage workers who have petitioned the High Court and are protected by the court are required to give necessary tokens for allowing them daily wage workers in operational area for maintenance of the tower lighting. Documents at Sr. Nos. 5 to 9 below Ex.6 are the office notes showing the names of the employees, designation, number of days present for work, period of leave etc. including the absentee statement. Document at Sr. Nos. 15 to 21 are the office notes and the document at Sr. No. 22 is the copy of judgment of WP No. 21 / 2001 giving liberty to the concerned workmen to move the conciliation machinery and directing the appropriate Govt. to consider the aspect as regards the making reference to the tribunal and by way of interim order the workmen were protected for 3 months. At Sr. No. 44, there is order of reference whereby the concerned workmen are asking for permanent absorption and the said reference is pending. At Sr. No. 31 below Ex.6, there is statement of claim filed by the concerned workmen. At Sr. No. 22, there is application for grant of interim relief and at Sr. No. 33 there is affidavit filed by the concerned workmen in respect of interim relief application. The said reference is thus pending. 7. The concerned workmen in his affidavit has stated that during pendency of reference the Opposite Party has altered the conditions of services of the complainants by refusing work, wages and benefits w.e.f. 3.4.07 without permission of the tribunal. This version of the concerned workmen has gone unchallenged as there is no cross examination directed against him. It will have to be said that this unchallenged version of the concerned workmen has to be accepted to come to the conclusion that Opposite Party has violated the provisions of section 33 of I.D. Act by refusing the work, wages and benefits to the complainants and thereby altered the conditions of services of the concerned workmen / complainants to their prejudice during the pendency of the said adjudication proceedings. 8. Learned Counsel for the concerned workmen / complainants submitted that as per section 33, no employer shall in regard to any matter connected with the dispute alter to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in the dispute conditions of services applicable to them immediately before commencement of such proceedings. He also refers to section 33 (A) to submit that where the employer contravene the provisions of section 33 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before Board or Arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the employee aggrieved by such contravention may make complaint in writing in the prescribed manner and the tribunal on receipt of such complaint shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were dispute referred to or pending before it. He seeks to rely on the decision in case of Automobile Products of India Ltd. & Ors. V/S. Rakmaji Bala & Ors. – AIR 1955 SC 258 to submit that tribunal has jurisdiction to go into the minutes of the complaint and grant appropriate relief. Submission is also to the effect that during the pendency of dispute before the tribunal service condition of the concerned workmen cannot be altered to their prejudice without permission of the tribunal. The reliance in the context is placed on the decision in case of Bhavnagar municipality V/S. Alibhai Karimbhai & Ors. – 1977 I LLJ 407 SC. 9. Considering un-challenged facts, evidence and the legal position, it appears to me that the Opponents have contravened the provisions of section 33 (1) (A) during the pendency of reference by refusing work, wages and consequential benefits to the workmen w.e.f. 3.4.07 without permission of the tribunal. Point No. is therefore answered accordingly. 10. In view of that, I pass the following order:
Order
1. It is declared that Opposite Party AAI has contravened the provisions u/s. 33 of the I.D. Act by refusing work, wages and benefits to the complainants w.e.f. 3.4.07 during the pendency of adjudication proceedings in Reference No. CGIT-2/ 17 of 2007.
2. The Opposite Party is directed to make payment of wages & benefits to the complainants / workmen w.e.f. 3.4.2007 and allow them to resume their duties.
Date: 22.10.2018
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1778.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में के न्र्दीय सरकार
मेसर्स एयरपोर्ट अथॉरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संब(cid:7373) नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट
औद्योगिक विवाद में के न्र्दीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं शर्म न्यायालय-2, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 3/2018) को
प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्र्दीय सरकार को 20.11.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-11012/7/2004-आईआर (एम)]
डी. के . हिमांशु, अवर सचिव6838 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 30th November, 2018
S.O. 1778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Airports Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20.11.2018.
[No. L-11012/7/2004-IR (M)]
D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 03 of 2018
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
The Airport Director, Airport Authority of India [IA] Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai – 400 099, MUMBAI.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri V.B. Tiwari, Sr. Auto Mechanics [SG], 502, Rahul Apartment, Behind Mukund Nagar, Kadamwadi, Andheri [E], Mumbai – 400 059, MUMBAI.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Ms. Geeta Raju Advocate
FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate
Mumbai, the 17th October, 2018
AWARD PART – I
1. This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-11012/7/2004 – IR (M) dated 11.06.2004. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
"Whether the action of the management of Airport Director, Airports Authority of India (IAD), Mumbai in dismissing Shri V.B. Tiwari, Sr. Auto Mechanics [SG] from services with immediate effect vide Memorandum dated 10.12.2003, is justified, proper and in proportionate to the alleged charges of misconduct ? If not, to what relief the workman Shri Tiwari is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter ?"
2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their respective representatives.
3. The concerned workman has filed statement of claim. According to the concerned workman, he was employed by the management of Airport Authority of India, Mumbai w.e.f. 31.12.1975 in the capacity of Auto Electrician Gr. I. He was further promoted to the post of Auto Mechanic in 1978, Sr. Auto Mechanic in 1990 and Auto Mechanic [SG] Sr. grade w.e.f. 12.7.98.
4. It is his case that the management issued show case notice dt. 27.5.96 to him alleging therein that he was running private garage at AAI land near airport. The garage was located in Survey No. 35 of Village Marole at Marole Technical area, Marole Pipeline. This private garage was on the land belonging to AAI, Mumbai airport and he had unauthorisedly encroached the same. The garage was run by the concerned workman in the name of his wife and the said act amounted to gross misconduct u/s. 5 (i)(v)(x) of IAAI Employees [Conduct, Discipline & Appeal] Regulations, 1987.
5. According to him, he was issued charge sheet on 11.10.96. He replied the said charge sheet on 28.10.96 and denied the charges. Management conducted departmental enquiry against him. Enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority by order dt. 1.2.2000 imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6839 service of AAI with immediate effect. He preferred appeal dt. 30.6.2000 to the Appellate Authority against the dismissal order. The Appellate Authority by its order dt. 29.3.01 set aside the dismissal order and ordered second enquiry by issuing fresh charge sheet. However, the Appellate Authority placed him under suspension w.e.f. 1.2.2000 by way of victimization.
6. It is then case of the concerned workman that he was issued fresh charge sheet vide Memorandum dt. 7.1.01 on same charges and allegations as were leveled earlier. It was alleged that he encroached the management's land i.e. Kondivita Village, Survey No. 104 situated at Marole Pipeline and motor garage in the name of his wife Smt. Sushila Tiwari was in existence. He denied the charges. The disciplinary authority ordered departmental enquiry. The departmental proceedings were conducted. E.O. submitted his report on 14.10.02. The disciplinary authority on the basis of findings given by E.O. by his order dt. 10.12.03 imposed upon the workman the penalty of dismissal from the services of AAI with immediate effect treating the period from 1.2.2000 to 9.12.03 as not treated as a period spent on duty. The concerned workman preferred an appeal dt. 30.12.03 to the Appellate Authority.
7. It is the case of the concerned workman that it was irregular and illegal on the part of management to initiate second enquiry on same & similar charges of the first enquiry which was set aside by the Appellate Authority. It was illegal to place him under suspension w.e.f. 1.2.2000. E.O. did not conduct disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the principles of natural justice. E.O. did not cause production of original documents which was exhibited by the E.O. as Ex. 2 C document dt. 12.2.03 and relied upon the same though it was not duly proved. Findings of the E.O. to the effect that the land in question i.e. land at Survey No. 104 belongs to the management is perverse. Findings of the E.O. are perverse since document Ex. 2 C i.e. Kami Jastic Patrak pertaining to land Survey No. 34 was a forged document and as such the E.O. did not give any clear finding as to the ownership of land in question. The E.O. ignored to consider the document produced by the concerned workman to establish that the land in question does not belong to management. As such the charges as against him are not proved. Findings of the E.O. are not based on the evidence and therefore the action of the management in dismissing him from the services w.e.f. 10.12.03 is illegal and unjustified.
8. The workman is therefore asking for reinstatement in service w.e.f. 10.12.03 with full back wages, consequential benefits treating the period of suspension as period on duty for all the purposes, costs & compensation.
9. The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement. It is contended that this Industrial Tribunal has not been sponsored by the union of the workman of the authority or by the substantial number of workmen employed by it. As such industrial dispute does not exists in order to invoke the provisions of section 2 (k) of I.D. Act, 1947.
10. It is then contented that the workman has raised industrial dispute over his demand for reinstatement in service vide his letter dt. 4.2.04. The industrial dispute was raised much before expiry of period of 3 months of date of appeal required by the Appellate Authority to pass the appropriate order. The workman thereafter during the pendency of reference moved the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay by filing writ petition in which he had prayed for relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefits etc. The Hon'ble High Court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal dt. 27.12.03 within one month from the date of receipt of order. In that circumstances the order of reference dt. 11.6.04 is pre-mature as the same was obtained by him during the pendency of appeal.
11. According to the first party management, show cause notice was issued to the workman under the signature of Assistant Manager with approval of Airport Director. The workman replied the said show cause notice by explanation dt. 4.6.96. The workman was issued the charge sheet by Memorandum dt. 11.10.96 along with statement of imputation of misconduct in support of article of charges framed against him vide Annexure – I, list of documents Annexure – II, list of witnesses Annexure – III. He was issued memo dt. 17.10.97 fixing the preliminary enquiry on 13.11.97. The domestic enquiry was held against him. He was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the Airport authority and to meet the charges leveled against him. E.O. submitted his report to the management on 8/10-10- 99. Airport Director being the disciplinary authority by order dt. 1.2.2000 imposed upon the workman the penalty of dismissal from services of AAI with immediate effect. The workman submitted his appeal addressed to the Chairman of the authority against the dismissal order. The appellate authority set aside the penalty of dismissal order dt. 1.2.2000 and ordered re-enquiry by issuing the fresh charge sheet as the appellate authority observed that proper records were not produced during the enquiry to establish the ownership of the land. It was further observed by the appellate authority that the workman also did not produce original relevant and proper records during the enquiry proceedings to dis-prove the allegations though City Civil Court in order dt. 1.9.98 in Suit No. 5439 / 1987 referred the statement of his wife that the land in question belong to authority. His suspension was therefore continued with retrospective effect from the date of his dismissal by order dt. 1.2.2000 till the case was decided by the disciplinary authority.
12. It is then case of the first party that 2nd charge sheet was issued by Memorandum dt. 7.8.2001 adding two charges.
I) committing fraud and dishonesty in connection with the property of AAI and causing damage to the said property and
II) refusing to surrender PIC No. N16256M in the department thereby willfully disobeying the lawful and reasonable orders of superiors and breach of security.
The charge sheet was including the statement of imputation of misconduct, list of documents, list of witnesses. The workman by his reply denied the charges. The departmental enquiry was held into the charges leveled6840 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] against him by memo dt. 7.8.2001 and was concluded on 20.6.02. Mr. Y. K. Goyal, Dy. G.M. [Cargo] was appointed as E.O. to conduct the enquiry. During the course of enquiry proceedings, originals of all the management documents were shown to the workman for his perusal and verification. He was given opportunity to admit or deny each article of charges of misconduct. He denied the charges leveled against him. Seven witnesses on behalf of the management were produced at the enquiry by the Presenting Officer. After evidence on behalf of the management both oral and documentary was over, the workman was asked to submit the list of defence witnesses and the documents in support of the case to which he replied in the negative. But thereafter he produced the documents in support of his defence. It is thus denied by the first party that the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.
13. According to the first party management, the EO submitted enquiry report to the management on 16.10.02. Thereafter by order dt. 10.12.03, the concerned workman was dismissed from services by Airport Director in exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation 27 of the Regulations. Airport Director perused the enquiry proceedings recorded by the E.O. as well as enquiry report and agreed with the conclusion arrived by E.O. The copy of enquiry report was given to the concerned workman. It is thus denied by the first party that the findings of the E.O. are perverse and based on no evidence. The workman thereafter filed appeal before the Appellate Authority praying to set aside & quash the dismissal order. The appeal was not decided by the Appellate Authority since during the pendency of appeal, the concerned workman initiated the conciliation proceedings before the conciliation officer. The conciliation officer recorded the failure of conciliation and failure report dt. 19.4.04 was sent by him to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi for adjudication of industrial dispute.
14. It is thus contention of the first party that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman from the services w.e.f. 10.12.03 is fair, proper, bonafide & legal and the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service w.e.f. 10.12.03 with full back wages, consequential reliefs etc. It has thus sought dismissal of reference.
15. By filing rejoinder the concerned workman reiterated that the land in question belongs to Central Govt. and not to AAI. Land Survey No. 104 has been now merged into CTS No. 272 which belongs to Central Govt. and therefore the findings of the E.O. are totally perverse and no disciplinary action can be taken against him on the basis of perverse findings. The Estate Officer appointed under Public Premises Act has also closed the proceedings initiated against the wife of concerned workman in the year 1998 knowingly fully well that the land in question does not belong to AAI.
16. Following issues are framed on 24.04.2006. Issue No.1 & 2 are treated as preliminary issues. Hence I reproduce the Issue No.1 & 2 along with my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
| Sr. No. | Issues | Findings |
| 1 | Does the workman prove that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice ? | No |
| 2. | Whether the workman proves that the findings of the Enquiry Officer given in his report dated 14.10.2002 are perverse ? | No |
Reasons
Issue No.1.
17. It is well settled that if the service of the employee came to be terminated after proper domestic enquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusions reached at the enquiry are not perverse, the Industrial Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or correctness of the said conclusion. But at the same time mere form of the enquiry would not satisfy the requirements of industrial law and would protect the disciplinary action taken by the employer from challenge. The enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless,
(a) employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him.
(b) witnesses are examined ordinarily in presence of the employee in respect of charges.
(c) employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.
(d) he is given fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence.
(e) E.O. records findings with reasons for the same in his report.
Now it is to be seen whether in the present case these requirements are complied or not ?
18. From the evidence on record, it appears that copy of imputation of misconduct, list of documents relied upon and the list of witnesses on the basis of which charges to be established were supplied to the concerned workman.
19. Mr. Y. K. Goyal, Dy. G.M. [Cargo] was appointed as E.O. to conduct the enquiry. During the course of enquiry proceedings, originals of all the management documents were shown to the workman for his perusal and verification. Even the workman in his cross examination has admitted that his Defence Assistant demanded the inspection of original documents and the same was given to him except document PD2C i.e. Kami Jastic Patrak. Admittedly, the workman[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6841 was given an opportunity to admit or deny each article of charges / acts of misconduct after furnishing him the facts of the case, the charges and acts of misconduct. He participated in the enquiry. He has produced himself as a witness before the E.O. Seven witnesses on behalf of the management were examined during the course of enquiry. After evidence on behalf of the management workman was asked to submit the list of defence witnesses and documents in support of his case to which he replied in negative. The workman also produced list of documents in support of his defence. After closure of evidence both the parties submitted their briefs. The report of the E.O. was also provided to the concerned workman on 16.12.02 and after receiving the dismissal order the workman preferred appeal on 27.12.03 which was decided by the Appellate Authority. That would show that the concerned workman was given sufficient opportunity during the course of enquiry to defend himself.
20. Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the enquiry was not fair & proper since it was illegal & irregular on the part of first party to institute second enquiry on the same & similar charges which was set aside by the Appellate Authority. As such the act on the part of disciplinary authority to issue the second charge sheet and holding the second enquiry against the second party was illegal & irregular.
21. In this respect, it can be said that the concerned workman has preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of dismissal dt. 1.2.2000 based on the first enquiry and then the Appellate Authority remitted the matter to the Airport Director ordering to hold fresh enquiry by issuing of fresh charge sheet taking into account all the relevant documents required in the case and hence the second enquiry was conducted. Even during the course of fresh enquiry as per the order of Appellate Authority the concerned workman was given full & fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of management. So it is not the case that the concerned workman was exonerated of the charges by the Appellate Authority. But in order to have fair & proper enquiry the Appellate Authority remitted the case to the Airport Director ordering to hold fresh enquiry by setting aside the order of dismissal dt. 1.2.2000. It is like remanding of the matter by the Appellate Authority for fresh enquiry. That does not mean that the Appellate Authority has exonerated the concerned workman of the charges leveled against him. On the contrary, it appears that the concerned workman was put under suspension during the course of fresh enquiry that was ordered by the Appellate Authority. As such the Appellate Authority has power to direct the fresh enquiry by remitting the matter to the Disciplinary authority and therefore it was not illegal on the part of first party to hold fresh enquiry by issuing the fresh charge sheet as per the order of Appellate Authority.
22. That apart even the fresh enquiry which was held as per order of Appellate Authority was not on same & similar charges of the first party. The second charge sheet dt. 7.8.2001 Ex. M-1 & M-29 was issued with additional charges by adding two charges namely.
I) committing fraud and dishonesty in connection with the property of AAI and causing damage to the said property and
II) refusing to surrender PIC No. N16256M in the department thereby willfully disobeying the lawful and reasonable orders of superiors and breach of security.
23. It cannot be said therefore that fresh enquiry was held as per the order of the Appellate Authority by adding two additional charges and therefore enquiry was not fair & proper.
24. Next contention of the second party workman is that the enquiry was not fair & proper because of non production of original document which was exhibited by the E.O. as Ex. 2C dt. 12.2.02 [Ex. M-10 on pg. 67) and E.O. relied upon the said document though it was not duly proved. In this respect as said earlier the concerned workman in his evidence has admitted that inspection of original documents was given to him except document 2 C [M-10 at pg. 67]. This document PD2C [Ex. M-10] is the Xerox copy of Kami Jastic Patrak. This is infact a public document and certified copy of the public document can be admitted in evidence. On going through the enquiry report, it appears that the E.O. has considered Kami Jastic Patrak which shows that the land CTS No. 272 Survey No. 104 is meant for Aerodrum. It has been observed by him that the said document PD2C i.e. Kami Jastic Patrak has been challenged as a forged document by the delinquent but the concerned workman that is delinquent did not produce the Kami Jastic Patrak to substantiate this particular document as forged document. He considered that the certified copy from Notary of Hak Patra dt. 28.1.02 & dt. 14.11.96 as DD No. 14 & 15 indicate that the survey No. 104 has been acquired for the purpose of Madhya Sarkar only. It appears therefore that EO did arrive at the finding that the land in question is belonging to AAI. It is not only on the basis of the document 2C [M-10] i.e. Kami Jastic Patrak. The other documents are tendered by the management before the E.O. Out of which the said document 2C is one of them. The inspection of original documents was given admittedly to the concerned workman during the course of enquiry and this document Ex. 2C [M-10] being public document was considered by the E.O. while arriving at finding. In the absence of evidence on behalf of the concerned workman before the E.O., the E.O. concluded that the said document 2C cannot be considered as forged document and placed reliance on it coupled with the other documents on record produced by the management.
25. Even it appears that the documents produced by the concerned workman Hakka-che-patrak dt. 14.11.96 and 28.1.02 which was marked by the E.O. as Ex. DD-15 & DD-14 respectively were taken into consideration by the E.O. to show that the land in question is belonging to the government and thereafter the E.O. considered that the land acquired by central Govt. prior to formation of IAAI 1971 was transferred to IAAI through IAA Act 43 of 1971 and then to AAI through AAI Act 55 of 1954. Even as per the list dt. 29.3.18, first party has produced certified copy of the Property Card which is public document showing that the property in question is belonging to AAI. It cannot be said therefore that the enquiry was not fair & proper since the E.O. placed reliance on Ex. M-10, the original copy of which has not been placed on record during the course of enquiry proceedings.
6842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]26. In this view it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the first party that the original document marked as Ex. 2C by E.O. was shown to the workman and he took the inspection of same. The said document was tendered by Mr. Arun Sharma during the course of enquiry and the same being public document, it is admissible in the evidence. The submission holds good while considering the aspect since it has not been established during the enquiry proceedings that the document 2C is forged document.
27. In view of this, it can be said that the E.O. concluded after considering the evidence, oral & documentary that the land is vested in authority by virtue of section 12 (1) (a) of the International Airport Authority Act, 1971. As such the land Survey No.104 under CTS No. 272 belongs to AAI.
28. Learned Counsel for the second party submits that the E.O. during the course of enquiry did not question the second party on the circumstances if any appearing against him in evidence for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing against him in the evidence as it was mandatory as per the Regulation 28 by International Airport Authority of India Employees [Conduct, Discipline & Appeal], Regulations, 1987. Therefore the enquiry is not fair & proper. he seeks to rely on the decision in case of Ministry of Finance V/S. S.B. Ramesh – 1988 CLR 659 to submit that where the E.O. failed to question the charge sheeted employee under sub rule 18 of Rule 14 of CCS [CCA] Rules, the omission to do this is a serious error committed by the enquiry authority and it vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings.
29. However, on going through the enquiry proceedings, it appears that the second party has filed written brief explaining the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. It cannot be said therefore that the opportunity was not given by the E.O. to the concerned workman to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. Even it cannot be said that the E.O. has not considered points raised by the second party in his written brief. What is necessary is that the delinquent should have been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself so that no prejudice would be caused to him. If there is no evidence to show that any such prejudice is caused to the concerned workman while conducting the enquiry then the conclusion is that the enquiry is fair & proper and as such there is no violation of principles of natural justice.
30. As a matter of fact, it appears that there were eight charges leveled against the concerned workman. As per charge No.1, the concerned workman committed encroachment on AAI land and was running garage on the said encroached land of AAI in the name of his wife. In respect of this charge, oral evidence of Hiramath who conducted the survey of land is considered by the E.O. along with documents namely P.R. Card PD3 of Village Kondivita bearing CTS No. 277. Hakkache Patrak PD-2(B) in respect of survey No.104 of Village Kondivita. Kami Jastic Patrak PD2C pertaining to CTS No. 272 corresponding Survey No. 104 and the notification document PD-4, Hakka Patra PD29 (B), PR Card PD-3. These documents were considered by the EO to come to the conclusion that disputed land belongs to AAI since survey No. 104 comes under CTS 272 and it belongs to Aerodrum as per KJP & PD4.
31. In this respect submission is that there is no documentary evidence to show that there is encroachment by running garage in the name of wife of concerned workman. The concerned workman in his evidence has no doubt denied the allegations that he is running motor garage on said encroached land of AAI. However, on going through the enquiry report the evidence of Kartar Singh and C.K. Nair is being considered by the E.O. to come to the conclusion that S.T. Auto Engg. Works located within the boundary land belonging to AAI and it was confirmed by Sr. Land Manager Shri A.K. Gupta that the concerned workman V.B. Tiwari is running the garage at survey No. 35 of Marole Technical area. Evidence of Gupta was considered by the E.O. to come to the conclusion that he visited the area with the supervisor and found few cars parked on the road adjacent to the garage. This was the evidence before the E.O. during the course of enquiry to come to the conclusion that as per notification gazette published dt. 2.4.53 in Bombay Govt. Notification dt. 28.8.47, the land was acquired for the purpose of Aerodrum and owned by AAI and that there was garage S.T. Auto Engg. Works within the boundary of land belonging to AAI which was run by the concerned workman Shri V.B. Tiwari.
32. It appears on going through the enquiry report that the defence of the concerned workman was that the document Kami Jastic Patrak is a forged document and that only on the basis of written statement of his wife, the E.O. has considered that the land belongs to AAI but that defence was not considered since there was no evidence before the E.O. to substantiate that the Kami Jastic Patrak was forged document. It is not even the case that only on the basis of statement of his wife in the written statement before court it was confirmed by the E.O. that land belongs to AAI. On going through the enquiry report, it appears that he considered oral and documentary evidence and corroborating evidence in the form of statement of wife of concerned workman that the land belongs to AAI and even the concerned workman during the course of enquiry has not disputed in his brief that he was running the motor garage on the encroached land. From this, it can be seen that the findings of the E.O. as regards charge No.1 is not perverse or biased.
33. Even then, the Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the E.O. ignored to consider the documents produced by the second party to establish that the land in question does not belong to the first party. He points out that the extract from the property registered card pertaining to the land at city survey No. 272 [M-11] shows that the title of the land is in favour of the Central Govt. He then points out that the document Ex. DD13 (M-36) i.e. 7/12 extract in respect of survey No. 35 of Village Marole, Ex. DD14 [Ex.M37], Hak Patrak dt. 28.1.02 in respect of land survey No. 104 of Kondivita Village and document Ex. DD15 [Ex.38] i.e. Hakkache Patrak dt. 14.11.96 is in respect of land survey No. 104 and all these documents show that the land in question does not belong to first party.
34. However, on going through the enquiry report, it appears that document i.e. Property Registered card, Hakkache Patrak, 7/12 extract pertaining to land survey No. 35 are being considered by the EO who found that the survey No. 104[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6843 has been acquired by Madhya Sarkar. But then the document Kami Jastic Patrak in respect of CTS No. 272 survey No. 104 shows that the land survey No. 104 is meant for Aerodrum. It cannot be said therefore that the documents relied upon by the concerned workman were not considered by the E.O. during enquiry.
35. Charge No.2 is in respect of allegations of committing fraud & dis-honesty in connection with the property of AAI and causing damage to the said property. As per the findings of the E.O., the land belongs to AAI and then while considering this charge, it was considered by the E.O. that the garage was situated on the property of AAI. Evidence of Paladia PW7 was considered which is to the effect that he himself went to the disputed land and found that the garage was situated. He contacted wife of the concerned workman who confirmed that the garage is in her name. Even on the basis of enquiries from the neighbours, the witness confirmed that the concerned workman was running the said garage. It can be said therefore that the findings of the E.O. as regards charge No.2 is also based on evidence.
36. Learned Counsel for the concerned workman submitted that the Estate Officer appointed under the Premises Act also closed the proceedings initiated against the wife of second party in the year 1998 knowing fully well that the land in question does not belong to AAI.
37. However, that is not the true position. On going through the copy of order of Dy. Municipal Commissioner Zone – III on the subject of un-authorised construction of the structure having 3 rooms and open space attached to temple abutting the road leading to KK Road to Ashok Nagar Technical area, Opp. Mukund Nagar, Marole Pipeline. It has been observed that the suit structure is on the land belonging to the government and in turn aviation Dept., AAI Govt. Undertaking. As per the order suit structure mentioned in the notice stands unauthorized and plaintiff Smt. Vidyapati Tiwari i.e. wife of the concerned workman is directed to remove the same by herself within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of order failing which Assistant Commissioner is directed to demolish the same on the risk and cost of plaintiff. This would show that as per the order of Municipal Commissioner unauthorized structure was erected by the wife of concerned workman on the land belonging to AAI and it was directed to be removed by her. In view of that it can be said the findings of the E.O. as regards the charge No.2 is not perverse.
38. As regards the charge No.3 which is in respect of indulging in outside business activity by the concerned workman while in service of AAI, the E.O. considered the evidence of Paladia indicating that the concerned workman was running the garage in the name of his wife, coupled with the documents PD-10 and PD-11 showing that the concerned workman used to sign the muster and was going to his own garage for doing the private trading. As such the findings of the E.O. to charge No.3 is also based on evidence.
39. As regards the charge No.4 which is in respect of hiding the information regarding possession of profession of his wife and claiming undue monetary benefits from AAI, the EO considered the evidence of Paladia and documentary evidence PD-10, PD-11, PD-14 indicating that the concerned workman was doing private trading and that he has availed LTC benefits for his wife and family members though as per document PD-14 it was indicated that his wife was dependent on him.
40. As regards the charge No.5, that is refusing to surrender PIC No. 16256, it was considered by the E.O. that as per additional PD No. 5 dt. 3.4.01, the concerned workman was requested to surrender PIC No. 16256 but he surrendered PIC No. 16256 only on 13.8.01 as indicated in DD-21 after the issuance of charge sheet dt. 7.8.01. As such, this finding of the E.O. is based on document PD-1, PD-2, additional PD-3 & additional PD-4 indicating that the concerned workman has refused to surrender the PIC though he was asked to surrender the PIC vide these documents.
41. Charge No.6 is in respect of acting in a manner prejudicial to interest of the authority. Charge No. 7 is in respect of acting in a manner unbecoming an employee of the authority and committing the act subversive of discipline and good behavior. Charge No. 8 is in respect of failure to maintain absolute integrity. The EO while considering that the Charges No.1 to 5 are proved has considered that for proving charge No. 6, 7, 8, the same reasoning holds good. Therefore on going through enquiry report, it appears that the findings of the E.O. are not perverse as such the findings are based on evidence.
42. Learned Counsel for the concerned workman seeks to rely on the decision in case of Dwarkachand V/s. State of Rajasthan – 1958 AIR Rajasthan 38 to submit that if the departmental enquiry is resulted in exoneration, second departmental enquiry on the same facts is not maintainable.
43. In the present case as seen earlier, it is not the case that the Appellate Authority has exonerated the concerned workman of the charges leveled against him. However, the Appellate Authority for giving fair opportunity has remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. As such it is the remanding of the matter by the Appellate Authority for fresh enquiry and therefore it is not the second enquiry on the same facts. Therefore the ratio in the above cited dictum does not help the concerned workman. It is because it may be possible in a particular case that there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of enquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary authority may ask the EO to record further evidence. Disciplinary authority has enough power to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion. These are the observations which I borrow from para – 12 of the cited judgment.
44. Learned Counsel for the concerned workman also seeks to rely on the decision in case of Satara Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Dist. Satara V/s. Subhash Kashinath Mule – 1991 – II CLR 405 to submit that specific provisions of the standing order has to be informed to the delinquent who has allegedly committed misconduct. If this was not done then it can be said that he was denied reasonable opportunity of being defended. The reliance is also place on the6844 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] decision in case of U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. V/s. Munniruddin – 1990 – II CLR 533 to submit that non-supply of material documents causes prejudice to the employee.
45. Here in the instant case it is not the case of the concerned workman that he has not been supplied the material documents. On the contrary in his cross examination, concerned workman has admitted that all the original documents except document M-10 has been shown to him. As regards the document Kami Jastic Patrak Ex. M-10 there is specific finding by the E.O. and the document is also referred during the course of enquiry. The certified copy of the said document is also placed on record during the course of enquiry. It cannot be said that during the course of enquiry the concerned workman was prejudiced because of non-supply of material documents or for any other reason. As such facts in the instant case are quite distinct & distinguishable.
46. Considering all these facts, I find that the E.O. conducted the enquiry proceedings in view of principles of natural justice. As such there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the findings of the E.O. are not perverse. I answer the above issues accordingly as indicated against each of them in terms of above observations.
47. Hence I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Enquiry held is fair & proper.
2. Findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse.
3. Parties are directed to argue and lead evidence on the point of quantum of punishment.
Date: 17.10.2018
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1779.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेष्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 55/2013) को प्रकाषित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3.12.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल.-12011/57/2013-आईआर (बी.-II)]
रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2018
S.O. 1779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/2013 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3.12.2018
[No. L-12011/57/2013 - IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 55/2013
Date of Passing Award – 16th October, 2018
Between:
The Dy. General Manager, Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office, Bhubaneswar (Orissa).
…1st Party-Management[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6845
(And)
The General Secretary, All Odisha Union Bank Employees Association, C/o. Union Bank of India, Bhubaneswar (Orissa)
… 2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
Shri B.B. Mohapatra, Auth. Re. …For the 1st Party- Management
Shri Ajay Kr. Mohanty, General Secretary … For the 2nd Party- Union
AWARD
By a letter No. L-12011/57/2013 – IR(B-II), dated 07.08.2013 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour & Employment, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein-after referred to as "The Act"), have referred the following dispute for adjudication and the reference runs as follows:-
"Whether the claims of the All Odisha Union Bank Employees Association that the action of the management of Union Bank of India claiming the violation of bipartite settlement in out-sourcing the job of Bank's currency chest situated at Berhampur is legal and or justified? What relief the said Union is entitled to?"
The facts relevant for adjudication of the dispute are that currency chest is part of a Bank where the jobs of cash remittances are undertaken. When cash is accumulated in a Bank branch in excess over the permissible limit, the excess cash is remitted to the chest. It is the claim of the 2nd party-Union in its statement of claim that such job of cash remittance is being done by Bank's own staff by use of Bank's own cash delivery van driven by the Bank's employee/Driver. On receipt of cash at the chest, Bank's Cashier counts the same and does all other ancillary works for onward remittance of the cash to the Reserve Bank of India. Similarly, when a branch is in need of cash, the cash is remitted to the branch by use of Bank's own Van accompanied by Bank's employees as stated above. It is the case of the 2nd party that one of such currency chests of the Management-Bank is situated at Berhampur, Odisha. The work of cash remittance was smoothly carried out in the chest by the employees of the Management as described earlier by using Bank's own cash Van. All of a sudden when the cash Van was out of order and brought to Bhubaneswar for repairing, the Management Bank had unilaterally decided to out-source the entire job of currency chest despite strong opposition to such out-sourcing by the Union. It is the claim of the Union that as per bipartite settlements between the Management and the Union there is no scope for the Management Bank to out-source the job of cash remittance except in the matter of I.T. and its related activities in respect of specialized area where in-house capabilities are not available. The action of the Management in hiring the outsource agencies for such cash remittance is an unfair labour practice as much as such action affects and brings change in service condition as enumerated in Schedule-IV of the Act. By introducing the method of outsourcing in the job of cash remittance an environment is being created for retrenchment of employees engaged in the said sector as well as the same will affect the promotion prospective of the employees. The said action of the Management is a clear case of violation of bipartite settlements between the parties. According to the 2nd party a protest was raised before the Management when such method of out-sourcing was adopted in the work of cash remittance. As the Management did not pay any heed to the demand of the Union for discarding the service of out-sourcing agency in the matter of cash remittance, a dispute was raised before the labour machinery. The conciliation attempt having been failed the reference as mentioned earlier is made to this Tribunal for an adjudication of the dispute.
In its written statement the Management-Bank has resisted the claim of the 2nd party taking a stand that the reference is not maintainable as there was/is no existing of apprehended industrial dispute between the parties in the event of out-sourcing the job of cash remittance. It is within the managerial discretion of an employer to organize and arrange his business in the manner he considers best. The engagement of out-sourcing agency in the work of cash remittance in a contingency cannot be treated or termed as an "Industrial dispute" as defined in Section 2(k) of the Act. As such, the reference is bad in law. That apart, it is the stand of the Management that no retrenchment/termination is effected or promotions of the employees are suspended or withheld by engagement of an out-sourcing agency in the job of cash remittance. There is also no specific terms and conditions in the various bi-partite settlements prohibiting the Management to take assistance of out-source in such cash remittance more particularly in urgent contingencies. On the other hand as per the guidelines issued from time to time by the Reserve Bank the Banks are to take its own decision and view on the desirability of out-sourcing in activity related to financial services for public interest and keeping in view all relevant factors including the commercial aspects of the decision. The decision to out-source the financial services activity is taken keeping in view the risk and for necessary safeguards of cash remittance. There is a need of large network to handle the currency chest and work of cash remittance to meet the cash requirements and cash remittance of various branches of the Management-Bank and its extension counters. The existing staff and infrastructure is not found adequate to meet such need. As such, the action of the Management cannot be held unfair or the same amounts to a change to service condition of its employees as defined and contemplated in the Act. The alleged action being managerial discretion of the Bank for its smooth functioning cannot be said illegal and unjustified and as such the dispute raised by the Union should be rejected out-rightly.
On the afore-mentioned pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for an effective adjudication of the dispute.
6846 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ISSUES
1. Whether the reference is maintainable?
2. Whether the claim of the All Odisha Union Bank Employees Association that the action of the management of Union Bank of India claiming the violation of bipartite settlement in out-sourcing the job of Bank's currency chest situated at Berhampur is legal and justified?
3. What relief the said Union is entitled to?
The 2nd party-Union has examined one of its office bearer and filed copy of the minutes of the I.R. Meeting held on 20.3.2012, copy of the bi-partite settlement dated 2.6.2005, copy of bipartite settlement dated 27.4.2010, copy of bipartite settlement dated 25.5.2015, copy of the letter of the Union dated 29.6.2012 addressed to the Management, copy of the letter dated 3.2.2014 issued by the A.G.M. Security, Mumbai to National Dy. Chairman, National Ex-Serviceman Co-ordination Committee, Calicut and copy of advertisement for recruitment of Armed Security Guard in RBI, which are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-7 to substantiate its stand, whereas the Management has also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence marked Ext.-A and Ext.-B to refute the claim of the Union.
FINDINGS
All the issues are taken into consideration simultaneously for the sake of convenience and since they are inter- linked to each other.
It is apparent from the pleadings and evidence of the 2nd party-Union that the action of the Management in out- sourcing the job of Bank's currency chest is opposed mainly on the allegation that the action violates the settlement reached out between the parties in the bipartite settlement of the year, 2005 as well as subsequent bi-partite settlements between the parties. According to the Union the Management is precluded by virtue of the bipartite settlement, 2005 to engage any out-sourcing agency in the matter/job of the cash remittance to bank's currency chest or vice-versa since Clause 31-H of the said bipartite settlement (Ext.-2) mandates that the Bank can only out-sourced IT and its related activities and no other area. Be that as it may, the decision of the Management in out-sourcing the work/job of currency remittance to the currency chest or vice versa is illegal and such action of the Management being an unfair labour practice as defined under section 9-A cannot be protected and legalized. As per the Management's pleading and argument the Management has discretion to run its day to day administration by adopting policies beneficial to the Management. The Management having competency to take decision in the policy matter/day to day administration is not necessarily to do a particular job or to get a work done in a particular manner as desired by the 2nd party-Union or its employees. Any decision taken for betterment of the administration or for public cause cannot be termed as industrial dispute as defined in the Act. As such the reference is not maintainable.
Taking into consideration the rival stands it is to be seen first whether the demand raised by the 2nd party is an "industrial dispute" required to be adjudicated under section 10-A of the I.D. Act. The grievance of the 2nd party-Union is that the action of the Management in out-sourcing the job of Bank's currency is not only prohibited by the bipartite settlements, but the same likely bringing changes to the service condition of the employees of the Bank is an unfair labour practice. The decision in the matter affects the terms and conditions of employment and any change in such service condition requires a notice as prescribed under section 9-A of the Act. It is not in dispute that the job of Bank's currency chest prior to the alleged out-sourcing was done by the employees of the Management-Bank. There is also no serious dispute that the Bank has its own vehicle and driver for the said job. It is also emerging from the evidence of the parties that the Management-Bank has sanctioned posts of armed guards for the purpose. Though, there is no specific pleadings or evidence to the fact that out-sourcing the job of Bank currency chest would likely cause retrenchment of armed guards or any other employees engaged in such job, it cannot be denied that any decision in the matter of out- sourcing or engaging its own employees in the said job is a matter related to the terms of employment as well as determination of contract of employment. As such any dispute in regard to the determination of contract or the employment or terms of employment is an "industrial dispute" as defined under section 2(k) of the Act. Hence, the argument advanced by the Management that the action taken by the Management and objection thereto is not an "industrial dispute" has no force to stand. In the Banking system the work of currency chest is very vital and essential part of the business of the Management. Any policy decision for smooth functioning of the currency chest will undoubtedly affect the terms of service condition of the workman engaged for the said job. That being the situation the 2nd party-Union has every right to raise an industrial Dispute before the competent authority for the action of the Management in out-sourcing the work of currency chest. In that view of the matter such dispute having been not conciliated can be referred to for an adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred under section 10-A of the Act. Hence, the claim of the Management that the reference is bad in law is not sustainable.
Coming to the issue whether the action of the Management-Bank in outsourcing the job of Bank's currency chest at Berhampur is a violation of the bi-partite settlement, 2005 (marked as Ext.-2) it is seen that the Management has taken a stand that neither the said settlement under Ext.-2 nor the bipartite settlements prior to or subsequent to Ext.-2 has any specific restriction for out-sourcing the job of currency chest. Besides, it has been claimed that the Bank has every right to reorganize its business or to close or out-source a particular work or section in order to rationalize or economize its business. There being no report of any retrenchment or surplus employees due to such out-sourcing of Bank's currency chest work the action of the Management cannot be counted as an unfair labour practice or such action has violated any terms conditions of service. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the 2nd party-Union that out- sourcing being restricted in the day to day business of the Management-Bank in view of different sub-clauses enumerated in clause – 31 of the bi-partite settlement, 2005 the action of the Management in out-sourcing Bank's currency chest job[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6847 is totally illegal and unjustified. Admittedly on a mere reading of the various sub-clauses of clause – 31 including clause 31-H, it is emerged that the Bank may out-source IT related activities and in respect of its specialized area only where in- house capability is not available. It is not in dispute that the bipartite settlement of 2005 and other settlements do not specify that the Management-Bank is strictly prohibited in out-sourcing other jobs than the IT activity. Moreover, the close reading of various sub-clauses of 31 leads to an inference that the Bank has authority or discretion to redesign, review the existing jobs or work process or to adopt the new systems and procedures, if it is believed in bonafide that the reorganization is necessary or the system can be rationalized and economized its business or economize its expenditure. At the same time the sub-clauses lead to an inference that the Management is to endeavor to retain/re-skill the staff in order to develop the in-house competencies while it may out-source IT and its related activities where in-house capabilities are not available. In view of such specific wording and sentences in Clause 32, doubt can also be entertained on the discretion of the Management to out-source all nature of jobs in the Bank other than the activity of IT sector. Further, it cannot be over-sighted as well as it is emerged from the evidence of the parties that the Bank was having its own staff for the job of currency chest. It was having its own cash delivery van and Driver and Security guards for the job of cash remittance in the currency chest. By introducing out-sourcing in the said job it can be presumed that employee engaged in such currency activity is likely to be declared surplus and occasion may arise for dislodging of the employees found surplus in the said activity. Hence, the out-sourcing would bring a change in service condition of certain section of the employees of the Bank. As per the provisions of Section 9-A the employer is prohibited to bring changes in service condition unless it is notified earlier otherwise the action would be an unfair labour practice. It is in evidence that no prior notice was given to the employees before adopting the system of out-sourcing in the currency chest. Though the Management has managerial discretion to organize/reorganize and arrange/rearrange its business in the manner he considers best so long it is bonafide. The Management has to take such action in organize/reorganize in accordance to the provisions required by any law/special statute. Since certain restrictions seems to have been made on the Management to borrow out-sourcing in other official business/job except in the matter of IT activities, the Bank was required to issue notice to the employees of the Bank. Hence, such action of the Management can be termed as illegal and unjustified solely on account of the same being not notified to the employees.
But, in the case at hand it cannot be over-looked that the Management took the assistance of the out-sourced when its delivery van became out of order. It is in evidence that the vehicle is yet to be repaired. The remittance in currency chest is an important part of Bank's business or job and it needs to be attended urgently. There is no evidence on behalf of the Union to show that the action of out-sourcing is adopted for all time. There is also no evidence to suggest that the action of out-sourcing has dislodged or disengaged any employee of the Bank or the same action is likely make some employees surplus or may affect their service condition. In absence of any specific evidence in the above regard the action of the Management due to certain contingencies cannot also be declared unfair on the ground of the same not being notified to the employees as required by the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act. The Management has taken a specific stand that it has out-sourced the currency chest job on account of cash delivery van being out of order. No evidence has been adduced by the 2nd party-Union to refute the said evidence. It is also well settled that it is within the managerial discretion of an employer to organize and arrange his business in the manner he considers best and such action is taken in bonafide, the Tribunal has no competency to question such action of the Bank (PAL & Others reported in air 1970 SC 1334). Hence, the action of the Management in out-sourcing the job of currency chest in urgency seems to be bonafide.
For the reasons and discussions made above in my considered view the claim of the 2nd party-Union to declare the action of the Management-Bank in out-sourcing the job of Bank currency chest as illegal and unjustified has no leg to stand or no legal sanctity. Besides, the dispute raised in this regard does not seem to be an industrial dispute in true sense of labour laws as there is no evidence to the effect that the Management has adopted the system of outsourcing as a permanent phenomena. Therefore, no relief can be given to the 2nd party-Union in the present contingency.
Reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1780.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 14/2017) को प्रकाषित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.12.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-31012/01/2017-आई आर (बी-II)]6848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, 3rd December, 2018
S.O. 1780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.12.2018
[No. L-31012/01/2017-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/14 of 2017
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST
The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust, Port House, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Mumbai – 400 001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Karbhari Keru Bhangare, A/108, Tulsivilla Building, Manda, Titwala (W), Distt. Thane, Thane –
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Umesh Nabar Advocate FOR THE WORKMEN : Absent
Mumbai, dated the 24th October, 2018
AWARD
1. This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-31012/01/2017 – IR (B-II) dated 26.04.2017. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
"Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri Karbhari Keru
Bhangare, Typist-cum-Computer Clerk w.e.f. 06.07.2012 under the pretext of long period of unauthorized
absenteeism is just & legal ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"
2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices.
3. On going through Roznama it appears that the concerned workman is absent since beginning i.e. from 4.7.17. Statement of claim has not been filed so far want of evidence to substantiate the claim. Reference is liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 24.10.2018
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1781.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 96/2014) को प्रकाषित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.12.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-31011/01/2014-आईआर (बी.-II)]
रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6849
New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2018
S.O. 1781.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.12.2018.
[No. L-31011/01/2014-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : M. V. Deshpande, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-2/ 96 of 2014
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST
The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust, Port House, 2nd Floor, S.V. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The President, The Bombay Transport & Dock Workers' Union, Shroff Mansion, 157-B, R. No. 25, 4th Floor, P. D'Mello Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. Umesh Nabar Advocate FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. P. K. Sharma Representative
Mumbai, dated the 8th October, 2018
AWARD
1. This is reference made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour& Employment, New Delhi vide its order No. L-31011/01/2014 – IR (B-II) dated 10.10.2014. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
"Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in denying the designation of "Ship Crane Operators' in Class-III to the Winch Drivers, presently categorized in Class-IV, for their operating heavy duty hydraulic and electric cranes with the lifting capacity in the range of 50-100 tones to 200-500 tones, and for proper pay fixation with retrospective effect at-least on par with Crane Operators of Mumbai Port Trust and payment of arrears, is justifies and legal / what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"
2. After the receipt of the reference, both the parties were served with the notices. They appeared through their respective representatives.
3. The concerned workman has filed statement of claim Ex.7 contending therein that the concerned workmen were recruited as senior workers by Ex. BDLB. They were promoted as Winch Driver after conducting proper training and interview. However, at the time of promotion as Winch Drivers they were not extended equal pay scale as other Winch Drivers. They were arbitrarily continued to retain on the same scale of senior workers and payment of first ACP was also retained by the first party even though they are entitled to equal pay and all other benefits as is being paid to Winch Drivers of first party.
4. It is also the case of the concerned workmen that in 1991 – 1992 due to advent of mechanism and technological upgradation, all winches unable to lift more than 10 tone weight were replaced by heavy lift jumbo derricks, gantry, jeminee, heavy and higher lifting capacity hydraulic & electric Ship's crane whose minimum lifting capacity is in range of 50 – 100 tones to 200 – 800 tones. The parcel packaging of the steel coils were also increased from 5 – 10 tones to minimum start of 20 tones. All these upgradations caused the cranes to be very fast moving and hence became very risky and posed a great risk to the operators while performing operations.
6850 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]5. According to the concerned workmen the first party forced to workmen to operate the same from the date of upgradation of technology without giving them proper benefits and equal pay scale grade and other benefits. The concerned workmen addressed letters raising their protest and requested the first party to resolve their grievances. The second party union on behalf of the workmen raised the demand on the management of first party by their letter dt. 28.11.13. The first party got the matter seized under conciliation before ALC on 5.12.13. However, on 5.2.14 Conciliation Officer advised the management of first party to hold bilateral talks with the second party union. However, the first party failed to extend the proper benefits and acted in a wholly arbitrary and illegally manner. Conciliation thus failed. Hence this reference.
6. It is then contention of the second party union that the action of the management of MbPT in failing to designate the concerned workmen as Ship Crane Operator and giving them proper grade from Class IV to Class III from the day of their operating heavy lift jumbo derricks, gantry, jeminee, heavy and higher lifting capacity hydraulic & electric Ship's crane whose minimum lifting capacity is in range of 50 – 100 tones to 200 – 800 tones be declared illegal and the management be directed to designate the concerned workmen as Ship Crane Operators and give them grade from Class IV to Class III with immediate effect and then direct the management to fix them under the proper pay scale of lower Crane Operator of MbPT who are operating maximum 16 – 20 tones crane and then direct the management to pay unpaid arrears of difference of wages and other benefits of that scale from the date of their promotion as Winch Driver till actual fixation and payment of proper pay scale.
7. The first party management resisted claim by filing written statement Ex.9. It is contended that the 2nd party union is seeking financial upgradation of the concerned employees by creating right in favour of employees by promoting them from Class IV to Class III under the guise of claiming their upgradation to the higher post on the ground that they are performing the similar and same duties of employees employed in Class III. However, their pleadings and order of reference would reveal that it is not the case of union that the employees concerned are deprived of any right to the upgradation from Class IV to Class III.
8. It is then contented by the first party that the nature of duties of Winch Drivers employed in Class IV and of Shower Crane Operators are different. Both the posts are in different streams and in different categories. The operations of Wharf Crane requires higher degree of skill compared to Winch crane since Wharf Cranes are shore post and move on the rails. If safety methods are not followed and if there is carelessness on the part of operator of wharf crane, it may lead to toppling the crane. This is not the case as regards Winch cranes as they are relatively more stable being the integral part of huge mass of ship. While lifting the cargo from the hatch of the ship by winch crane, there is relative movement of winch crane and the ship. This is not the case when cargo is handled by wharf crane as there is no relative movement between wharf crane and ship on account of which more precision and skill is required while operating the wharf crane for loading the cargo from wharf into the ship and unloading it from the ship to wharf. The operation of the wharf cranes demands that all the 3 operations namely hoisting / lowering of hook, luffing and slewing to be done in synchronized manner which is not in case of winch cranes. Winch drivers are supposed to operate ship winch / jumbo derricks, jeminee which are types of ship winch prepared to handle heavy lift cargo. Due to change in configuration of ships now a days most of the ships are equipped with ship crane. Winch drivers are operating ship winch crane and such lifting devices i.e. ship crane, jumbo derrick, jeminee, gantry etc. are fixed on the board vessel.
9. It is contented by the first party that the issues as regards designation & upgradation of pay scales of category of winch drivers on board level was thoroughly examined by one man committee for classification and categorization of employees and workers of major port trust and Dock labour board appointed by Indian Ports Association. The said committee after taking into consideration all the factors gave recommendation at paragraph 20.25 on the issue of winch drivers. Now it is decided to refer the issue for arbitration and therefore the issue is pending before arbitration.
10. It is also contented by the first party management that the advent of mechanism has reduced the human skill element and operations can be carried out more precisely and safely due to technical upgradation on the ship cranes. Many ships come to the port with cranes of capacity less than 50 tones which are operated by winch drivers. There are many cargo including bagged cargo which are now handled in port of having weight less than 5 tones and therefore the benefits sought by the 2nd party union if granted would amount to showing favour to one set of employee without giving opportunity of being heard in the matter of other set of employees whose services would be adversely affected. It is thus denied by the first party that the winch drivers are operating under fear and pressure and that they are subjected to various harassment tactics. It is thus contended that the second party union is not entitled to any relief. The first party has thus sough dismissal of the reference.
11. The second party union by filing rejoinder Ex.13 reiterated that the cargo is admittedly either loaded or unloaded by the winch drivers are the ship crane operators. Winch drivers do loading & unloading and cranes which are among land static and stationery are do not move. Ship on the other hand is never stationery and always moves depending on waves and ripples on the water and loading & unloading from the same is more difficult and possess more danger to the workers operating as ship crane operators.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 685112. Following issues are framed at Ex.18. I reproduce the issues along with my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
| Sr. No. | Issues | Findings |
| 1 | Whether the 2nd party proves that the Winch Drivers are working as Ship Crane Operator since 1991 - 1992 ? | No |
| 2. | Whether the 2nd party proves that the Winch Drivers operate cranes of higher capacity than the Shore Crane Operators of Mb.P.T. ? | No |
| 3. | Whether the 2nd party/Union proves that the nature of duties of Winch Drivers in class-IV categories are same on that of Crane Operators in Class III categories are same to claim same pay-scale with retrospective effect ? | No |
| 4. | Whether the 2nd party proves that the Winch Drivers are entitled to higher pay scale, grade and designation higher than or at-least on par with Shore Crane Operators with retrospective effect from 1991 – 1992 ? | No |
| 5. | Whether the action of First Party denying the same pay-scale to Winch Drivers in Class-IV category as that of Crane Operators in Cass-III category is legal, fair and proper ? | Yes |
| 6. | What order ? | As per final order |
Reasons
Issue No. 1, 2 & 3.
13. The main issue raised by 2nd party union in the above reference is that the nature of duties of Winch drivers employed in class –IV and Shore Crane Operators are the same and that they should be paid scales and proper pay fixation with retrospective effect and be designated as Ship Crane operators. However, the 2nd party union in its statement of claim has not specifically stated about the nature of duties of Winch drivers vis-à-vis the nature of duties of Shore Crane Operators.
14. So far evidence of the President of the union is concerned vide Ex.23, he appears to have stated that the concerned workmen were designated as senior workers and thereafter they were promoted as Winch drivers after conducting training & interview. What is stated by him is that the workers who were recruited and promoted as Winch drivers since 1991 – 1992 were denied equal pay scale as applicable to the category of Winch drivers. In short it is the case of the concerned workmen that the work of Winch drivers in class –IV and Shore Crane Operators in class – III is same meaning thereby they are claiming promotion as Shore Crane Operator.
15. For, it is explicit from the evidence of the President of the union that the concerned workmen are claiming the pay scale on par with Ship Crane Operators who are in class – III claiming thereby that winch drivers are doing the work as Ship Crane Operators and that they are not of different categories.
16. However, in his cross examination, he admitted that the weight of the cargo is increased by technical advancement of the machinery. Admittedly winches are converted by technical upgradation. It is admitted that same winch drivers operate advanced machinery which is replaced by earlier winches. If that is so, then it can be said that by technical advancement of the machinery, risk to the operation is reduced while performing operations.
17. From the evidence of Ainul Haque S/o. Salim Khan, Mohd. Anwar & Naresh Lavande, it is clear that they are claiming promotion as Shore Crane Operator. In their cross-examination, they have admitted that they have not operated as Shore Crane Operators. They are working as Winch drivers. Winch driver is in Class – IV categories, Shore Crane Operator is in Class – III category. So the categories are different. Admittedly they are operating in category from Shore Crane Operator. It appears therefore that the concerned workers are claiming promotion as Shore Crane Operator only on the basis that the work of Winch driver is at par with Shore Crane Operator.
18. In this respect if we see the evidence of first party witness, Shri Shashi Kumar Nikam, Asst. Administrative Officer, it is clear from his evidence that the operations of ship crane requires higher degree of skill compared to winch crane, for the following reasons.
(i) Wharf Cranes (Ship Cranes) are shore based and move on the rails. If safety methods are not followed and if there is carelessness on the part of the operator of a Wharf Crane it may lead to the toppling of the Crane. This is not the case as regards Winch Cranes, as they relatively more stable being an integral part of the huge mass of the Ship.
(ii) While lifting the cargo from the hatch of the Ship by a Winch Crane, there is relative movement of Winch Crane and the Ship. However, this not the case when Cargo is handled by the Wharf Crane, as there is no relative movement between the Wharf Crane and the Ship on account of which more6852 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] precision and skill is required when operating the Wharf Crane for loading the Cargo from the Wharf into the Ship and unloading it from the Ship to the Wharf.
(iii) Operation of Wharf Cranes demands that all the three operations viz. hoisting/lowering of hook, luffing and slewing to be done in synchronized manner which is not the case in respect of Wharf Cranes.
19. Apart from this, winch drivers are supposed to operate ship winch, jumbo, derricks, jeminee which are types of ship winches prepared to handle heavy lift cargo. Winch drivers are operating ship, winch & lifting devices such as ship crane, jumbo, derricks, jeminee, gantry etc. which are fixed on board of vessel. So considering the nature of work of the winch drivers and ship crane drivers, it can be said that their duties are different, they are working in different categories. As such there is no evidence to prove that the nature of work of Ship Crane Operators/Winch drivers and Shore Crane Operators is same. At the most it can be said that the nature of work of both the categories of cranes are same.
20. That part, if the demand of the concerned workmen is being taking into consideration, then it is submitted that it is the prerogative of Indian Ports Association to deal with these issues of all the ports in the country in respect of fixing, classification including wage scales and other service conditions. It is explicit from the document at Ex.43 which says about the prerogative of Indian Ports Association. Latter at page 9 & 10 on Ex. 43 establishes that such resolution of the issue has to be with concurrence the Federation of the employees of all ports. In any case that issue is to be resolved by approval of Indian Ports Association.
21. Even then the Learned Counsel for the union submitted that work done by the concerned workers and crane operators is similar. Submission is to the effect that Shore Crane Operators working in the Wharf were not Shore Crane Operators and Shore Crane Operators never runs on tracks during actual operations. By referring to the evidence of Mr. Nikam, submission is made that the winch drivers were high skilled and performing the work of loading from wheels to wharf and from wharf to wheels and could do the work of Wharf Crane Operators. In this view the submission is that the work of concerned workers involved more skill and called for greater precision and accuracy apart from more dangerous and therefore it is necessary to extend them benefits of equal pay for equal wages.
22. It is not possible to countenance the view propounded by Learned Counsel for the concerned workmen. As seen earlier, it is the prerogative of Indian Ports Association to deal with such issues of all the ports in the country. Merely saying that the work of the concerned workmen is risky and hazardous does not give right to them to claim promotion and financial upgradation without establishing any right vested in them under the existing system. In view of this the submission is also to the effect that the second party union raised issues of re-designation and upgradation of pay scales of category of winch drivers of on board labour. It was thoroughly examined by one man committee for classification and categorization of employees and workers of major port trust and Dock labour board by Afzalpurkar committee appointed by Indian Ports Association. The said committee after taking into consideration all the factors gave recommendations at paragraph 20.25 on the issue of winch drivers. 5 Federations of employees have already raised the issue of implementation of Afzalpurkar committee report with CLC in which at paragraph 20.25 of the said report the issue of winch drivers is covered and it is decided to refer the issue for arbitration. When the issue is pending before arbitration, the issue of winch drivers at MbPT in isolation cannot be considered.
23. Considering all these facts, I find that the second party union has failed to establish that the nature of duties of winch drivers of class – IV categories are same on that of crane operators in class –III categories and as such they are operating cranes of higher capacity than the Shore Crane Operators of MbPT. The witnesses examine on behalf of the unit admit in their cross examination that they never worked as Shore Crane Operators but then they are claiming promotion as Shore Crane Operators in class – III categories from class – IV categories. Obviously they are not entitled to claim designation and pay scale at par with Shore Crane Operators. The above issues are therefore answered accordingly as indicated against each of them in terms of above observations.
Issue No.4, 5 & 6.
24. In view of my findings to the above issues, I find that the concerned workmen are not entitled to higher pay scales, grade, re-designation with retrospective effect from 1991 – 1992 and as such the action of the first party in denying the same to them is legal & proper.
25. Hence I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Reference is rejected with no order as to costs.
Date: 08.10.2018
M.V. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6853
नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1782.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेष्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 81/2012) को प्रकाषित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03.12.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12011/1/2012-आईआर (बी-II)]
रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2018
S.O. 1782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03.12.2018.
[No. L-12011/1/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 81/2012
Date of Passing Award – 24th October, 2018
Between:
The Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, B-2 East, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 007. …1st Party-Management
(And)
The General Secretary, Indian Bank Employees Union, Plot No. 32, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) – 751 009. …2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
Ms. Subhadra Sahoo, Asst. Manager … For the 1st Party- Management Shri Ashok Kumar Mohanty, General Secretary … For the 2nd Party-Union.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-12011/1/2012 (IR(B-II), dated 30.08.2012 have referred the following dispute for adjudication in exercise of its power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein-after referred to as "The Act")
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar in not considering the case of regularization of 8 numbers of canteen employees (S/Shri Akhya Sahu, Dibakar Padhi, Dilip Kumar Patra, Parikhit Nanda, Gauranga Chandra Nath, Prabhat Kumar Barik, Bijoy Kumar Dash and Niranjan Behera) who are engaged by the Bank through Indian Bank Staff Canteen committee for decades together in Bhubaneswar, is appropriate and justified? What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"
2. The 2nd party-Union filed its statement of claim taking a stand that the eight canteen boys have been working in the canteens in the different branches of the Management-Bank for more than fifteen years continuously, when the reference was made. Their nature of job was perennial since the canteen is a part and parcel of the Bank. The branches of the Bank, where the canteen boys were working, were previously under the supervision of Calcutta zone. After opening of a zonal office of the Management-Bank the branches at Odisha have come under the control of the zonal office at Bhubaneswar. According to the Union a dispute was raised for regularization of services of the canteen boys working in different branches while the zonal office was at Calcutta. Consequently, a dispute relating to regularization of 41 canteen boys was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. While the said dispute was pending for adjudication before the Tribunal of Calcutta, a bipartite settlement was made between the parties for regularization of 91 canteen boys working in different branches of the Bank. The names of the canteen boys in the present dispute were also included in that settlement. Pursuant to such settlement the Tribunal of Calcutta passed an award directing regularization of services of all 91 canteen boys. But, the Management preferred a writ before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta challenging the award. Since the original reference was related to 41 canteen boys working in different6854 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] branches of the Bank at Calcutta, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the award given in favour of 91 canteen boys and modified the same by holding as follows:-
"With regard to 91 canteen boys, we are of the view that the Tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction to consider all those 91 persons since the reference was related to 41 persons only and not 91 persons named in the list attached to the award. The award, therefore, would be applicable in case of original 41 persons whose names are appearing in the order of reference. For the other 50 persons the Union would be entitled to raise similar dispute and such issue can be resolved through reconciliation on the same terms and conditions so that those 50 persons could also be brought within the hotchpots of this settlement to avoid further complication.
The Management preferred a S.L.P. against the order of the Hon'ble High Court. But, the same was dismissed. It is the stand of the 2nd party-Union that a fresh dispute was raised before the labour machinery at Bhubaneswar for regularization of eight canteen boys keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. In view of regularization of service of 41 canteen boys employed in the canteens of the branches of the Bank at Calcutta the Management-Bank is also required to be regularized the services of the eight canteen boys engaged in different branches of the Bank at Odisha.
3. On the other hand, the Management-Bank has resisted the claim of the Union on a pleading that no canteen has been established or run by the Bank in any of the branches of Odisha. Hence, there was no scope for employing or engaging the disputant canteen boys by the Management. Therefore there being no relationship of "employer and employee" between the Bank and the canteen boys the dispute as much as the reference is not maintainable in the eye of law. It has also challenged the merit of the claim on a contention that the canteen boys were neither employed nor engaged by the Bank nor their wages was paid by the branches of the Bank. The Bank-Management has its own recruitment rules and procedures for appointment of sub-staff cadres. As such the Bank had no role in the appointment of canteen boys working in different branches. So far the award of CGIT, Calcutta and the settlements filed thereon are concerned, it is the stand of the Management that in no point of time the Management-Bank had agreed to regularize the services of 41/91 canteen boys unconditionally. The settlement was subject to condition and it was subject to the approval of the Central Government. It is also the specific stand of the Management-Bank that the reference made to the Tribunal of Calcutta as well as the award passed therein has no bearing with the present dispute and as such, this Tribunal is not bound by the award given by the Tribunal of Calcutta. The present dispute has to be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings and evidence advanced in the present reference.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled for proper adjudication of the dispute.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar in not considering the case of regularization of 8 numbers of canteen employ8ees (S/Shri Akshya Sahu, Dibakar Padhi, Dilip Kumar Patra, Parikhit Nanda, Gauranga Chandra Nath, Prabhat Kumar Barik, Bijoy Kumar Dash and Niranjan Behera) who are engaged by the Bank through Indian Bank Staff Canteen Committee for decades together in Bhubaneswar, is appropriate and justified?
2. What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?
5. The parties have led oral as well documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. The 2nd Party-Union has examined its Vice President and filed documents like copy of the award of CGIT, Kolkatta in I.D. case No. 47/1992, copy of terms of the settlement along with list of 91 employees covered in the award of CGIT, Kolkatta, copy of the orders of the Hon'ble Kokkatta High Court in W.P.(C) No. 2101/1999, copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 8.5.2009, copy of the letter dated 17.7.1995 issued by the Zonal Manager to the Regional Manager, copy of the letter dated 7.8.1995 issued by the Regional Manager, copy of the letter dated 7.8.1995 of the Regional Manager issued to Krushna Prasad to put-forth their claim, whereas the Management has examined its Branch Manager and exhibited copy of the Management's manual (staff welfare & concession in charges) to refute the claim.
FINDINGS
6. For the sake of convenience all the issues are taken for consideration simultaneously.
It is apparent from the pleadings and evidence as well as argument of the 2nd party-Union that its claim is solely based on the award given by the Tribunal of Calcutta and observation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta while setting aside the award in favour of 50 canteen boys whose claim was not referred in the original reference made by the Tribunal of Calcutta. According to the Union the Management having agreed and entered into a settlement for regularization of 91 canteen boys it cannot back-out from the earlier settlement and take a different stand in the present dispute. When it has recognized the claim of all canteen boys and entered into a settlement, its stand that no canteen is being run by the management in the branches at Odisha is not acceptable. Admittedly, there is no serious dispute to the claim of the Union that an award was given earlier by the CGIT, Calcutta for regularization of services of 91 canteen boys in view of the settlement made between the parties. The present canteen boys were also named in the said award for the purpose of regularization of their service. But, the award having been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta on a contention that the original dispute was related to regularization of 41 canteen boys and the industrial adjudicator has to go by the terms of the reference, the award has no bearing in the present reference. On a close reading of the said award, the conciliation report filed before the said Tribunal and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which are marked as Ext.-1 to Ext.-3, it is found that the Management-Bank had agreed for empanelment of canteen boys as its[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6855 sub-staff subject to approval by the Central Government. There is no evidence to establish that the Central Government had already given approval for regularization of the original 41 canteen boys. Thus, the settlement was apparently a conditioned one and as such it has no binding force on the Management in the present dispute. That apart, the settlement between the parties, which is marked as Ext.-2, does not reveal that the Management-Bank had ever conceded that the canteens, where the boys were working, belonged to him or those canteens were recognized by it. It was not also conceded by the Bank in the said settlement that the canteen boys were engaged on its instance or they were working under the control and supervision of the respective branches or it was paying wages to the canteen boys. In that view of the matter the Management-Bank cannot be held to have taken any contradictory stand. On the other hand the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court reveals that the Hon'ble Court set aside the award so far canteen boys not named in the original reference are concerned making an observation that for other 50 persons the Union would be entitled to raise a similar dispute and such dispute can be resolved through reconciliation on the same terms and conditions so that those 50 persons can also be brought with the hot spot of the settlement to avoid further complication. Be that as it may, the Management has no legal obligation to go for a reconciliation in the present dispute on the same terms and conditions as made in its earlier settlement with the Union. No-where it has been estopped to take a different view than the earlier one. That apart, the earlier settlement was subject to approval of the Central Government. No evidence has been adduced by the 2nd Party-Union to show that the settlement made before the Calcutta Tribunal was approved by the Central Government. In the above backdrops the pleadings and arguments advanced by the 2nd Party-Union has no force. The present dispute has to be adjudicated on its own merit keeping in view the pleadings and evidence advanced before the Tribunal.
Coming to the next issue on the merit of the dispute raised by the 2nd party-Union it is seen that the Management has challenged the maintainability of the reference on a plea that the canteen boys are not its employees. Whereas, the Union claims for regularization on a plea that the boys having worked for continuously a long period in the canteens of the Management-Bank are to be regularized in the services of the Bank. The canteen are managed by a committee formed by the Bank itself and the canteen having been run in the premises of the Bank, the boys working therein are to be counted as workmen of the Bank. Before coming to the above pleadings of the parties it is profitable to mention here that as per the principles set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Indian Overseas Bank Staff –versus- Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. Reported in (1999) IIILLJ 621 Mad that the canteens run in the establishment of the employer are to be classified into three categories; (i) statutory canteen which are required to be provided with subsidy in view of Section 46 of the Factories Act, (ii) non-statutory recognized canteens which are established with the prior approval and recognition of the employer and (iii) non-statutory/non-recognized canteen which are established without prior approval or recognition of the employer. As per the settled principles of the Apex Court the employees in the statutory canteen are the workmen/employees of the employer. In the case at hand no evidence has been adduced by the 2nd party-Union to show that the canteens, where the boys are stated to have been working are statutory canteen or a non-statutory recognized canteen. It is not also established that those canteens are established with the prior approval and recognition of the Management-Bank. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Management had any role in establishing or running those canteens. On the other hand, it is admitted by the witness of the 2nd party-Union that the Management- Bank is in obligation to maintain a canteen in the branches wherever the number of employees is more than 30. No evidence has been adduced that any branches of the Management-Bank has more than 30 numbers of employees. No document or any paper is filed on behalf of the Union to support its claim that the canteen is a part and parcel of the Management-Bank. On the other hand, the witness of the Management-Bank and the circular of the Management-Bank (Ext.-A) support the stand of the Management-Bank that the Bank has an obligation only to provide space, furnitures, fixtures and utensils free of cost for the canteen and in addition the canteen subsidy payable as per the guidelines wherever the number of employees working in the Bank premises exceeds 75. As per the said circular canteen subsidy is extended to all the staff members at the rate of Rs. 6/- per employee per working day towards cost of the item served to the employee in the canteen. The subsidy is available to the subsidy administration committee of the branch. There is no word in the said circular/guidelines about the obligation of the Management to run a canteen for its staff. That being the position, burden lies heavily on the Union to establish that the canteens, where the boys are stated to have been working, belonged to the Management and the disputant boys were working under the control and supervision and paying role of the Bank. Admittedly, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced in this regard to claim that the canteens are either established or run by the Management-Bank and the disputants are working under the pay role of the Bank or their work is supervised and controlled by the Management in any manner. When the employer and employee relationship has not been established between the disputant canteen boys and the Management, a doubt can be entertained on the merit of the dispute raised by the Union as well as maintainability of the reference. There is also no evidence before the Tribunal as to how those eight canteen boys were employer/engaged and if the Management-Bank had any role in engaging them to work as canteen boys or the Management was bearing their monthly wages. In absence of pleadings and evidence in the above aspect, the demand of the Union towards regularization of services of canteen boys is not enforceable under the provisions of the I.D. Act. Hence, the action of the Management in not regularizing the services of the canteen boys cannot be hold illegal and unjustified.
For the reasons mentioned and discussed above the statement of claim preferred by the Union is rejected.
The reference is answered accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer6856 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2018
का.आ. 1783.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेष्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 59/2017) को प्रकाषित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05/12/2018 प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/115/2016-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 5th December, 2018
S.O. 1783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.12.2018.
[No. L-12012/115/2016-IR (B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 59/2017
L-12012/115/2016 – IR(B-I), dated 13.09.2017
Date of Passing Order – 10th October, 2018
Between:
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, At./Po. Birasal, Via-Badasuanlo, Ps. Kankadahada, Dist. Dhenkanal. …1st Party-Management.
(And)
Shri Debakanta Das, S/o. Benudhar Das, At./Po. Birasal, Via. Badasuanlo, Dist. Dhenkanal, Odisha.
…2nd Party-Disputant.
Appearances:
Shri B.K. Mishra, Auth. Rep. … For the 1st Party- Management None … For the 2nd Party- Disputant
ORDER
Authorized representative of the Management is present, whereas none appears on behalf of the 2nd party-Union on repeated calls. It is submitted by the authorized representative of the Management that the Union is not taking any step in the proceeding for the last several adjournments and probably the Union has no interest to prosecute the dispute. Perused the record. It is seen that after filing of the statements by the parties the 2nd party-Union is not taking any steps for which the proceeding is adjourned without adjudication of the dispute. The reference case cannot be protracted in such a manner for an indefinite period by giving mechanical adjournments awaiting the appearance of the 2nd party-Union at its sweet will. As the 2nd party-Union fails to adduce any evidence and he has defaulted in appearance, there is nothing before the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute, which has been referred to.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that until adjudication of the dispute referred to by the authority concerned, an award cannot be made within the meaning of the award as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. There is also no provision in the Act to pass a no-dispute award or a nil award in case the disputant fails to make appearance and prosecute its claim. In that view of the matter passing of a no-dispute award or nil award for absence of the disputant/parties would be a misconception and the above position has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case between M/s. IDL Chemicals Limited –versus- P.O. Labour Court, Sambalpur reported in 72(1991)CLT 73 and in the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of B.R. Bermen and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd., -versus- Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and others (short noted in 1977 Lab. I.C. (NOC) 13 (CAL). It has been also held by the Hon'ble Courts that so long as the dispute remains unsettled and the proceeding came to an end without[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6857 adjudication of the dispute between the parties, there is no bar under the Act whereby the Government is precluded from referring the dispute over again so that there may be an industrial adjudication as contemplated by the Act.
3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as settled principles I am constrained to dismiss the case registered on the reference of the dispute without any award and accordingly the reference is disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1784.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पारादीप पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेष्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 22/2018) को प्रकाषित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12. 2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-38011/04/2017-आईआर (बी-II)]
रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 6th December, 2018
S. O. 1784.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Paradip Port Trust,, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.12.2018.
[No. L-38011/04/2017-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 22/2018
L-38012/04/2017 – IR(B-II), dated 09.03.2018
Date of Passing Order – 17th October, 2018
Between: 1. The Chairman, Paradip Port Trust, Paradip, Jagatsinghpur.
2. The General Manager, M/s. J.M. Baxi & Co., At./Po. Paradip Port, Paradip, Dist. Jagatsinghpur, Orissa. …1st Party-Managements
(And)
The General Secretary, Paradip Port Workers Union, Badapadia, Paradip Port, Jagatsinghpur. …2nd Party-Union
Appearances:
None … For the 1st Party- Managements None … For the 2nd Party-Union
ORDER
Parties are absent on repeated calls. It is seen from the record that the Union is not taking any step in the proceeding for the last several adjournments and probably the Union has no interest to prosecute the dispute. It is also seen that the 2nd party-Union has not filed any statement of claim inspite of registered noticed issued to it on 13.8.2018. The reference case cannot be protracted in such a manner for an indefinite period by giving mechanical adjournments awaiting the appearance of the 2nd party-Union at its sweet will. As the 2nd party-Union fails to file any statement of claim and he has defaulted in appearance, there is nothing before the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute, which has been referred to.
6858 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]2. It is pertinent to mention here that until adjudication of the dispute referred to by the authority concerned, an award cannot be made within the meaning of the award as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. There is also no provision in the Act to pass a no-dispute award or a nil award in case the disputant fails to make appearance and prosecute its claim. In that view of the matter passing of a no-dispute award or nil award for absence of the disputant/parties would be a misconception and the above position has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case between M/s. IDL Chemicals Limited –versus- P.O. Labour Court, Sambalpur reported in 72(1991)CLT 73 and in the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of B.R. Bermen and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd., -versus- Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and others (short noted in 1977 Lab. I.C. (NOC) 13 (CAL). It has been also held by the Hon'ble Courts that so long as the dispute remains unsettled and the proceeding came to an end without adjudication of the dispute between the parties, there is no bar under the Act whereby the Government is precluded from referring the dispute over again so that there may be an industrial adjudication as contemplated by the Act.
3. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances as well as settled principles I am constrained to dismiss the case registered on the reference of the dispute without any award and accordingly the reference is disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1785.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेषनल बैंक के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकत्ता के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 23/2012) को प्रकाषित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06.12. 2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-39025/01/2017-आईआर (बी-II]
रवि कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 6th December, 2018
S.O. 1785.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank,, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 06.12.2018.
[No. L-39025/01/2017-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUN ALAT KOLKATA
Application No. CGIT-23 of 2012
(Under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947)
Parties: Shri Asesh Kumar Mishra, C/o. Shri Pinaki Sekhar Koyal, 149/3, A.C. Road (South), Indrapasta, Khagra, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin – 742103
…Applicant
Vs
1. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, West Bengal Zonal Office, Apeejay House, 4th Floor, Kolkata – 700016.
2. Punjab National Bank, Circle Office at Fancy Market Complex, G.T. Road, Burdwan – 713103.
3. Punjab National Bank, Baharampur Branch, Khagra, Baharampur, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin – 742103
…Opp. Parties
Present: Justice Ravindra Nath Mishra, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6859
Appearance:
On behalf of the Applicant : Mr. Ranjoy De, learned counsel.
State: West Bengal. Industry: Banking
Dated: 28th November, 2018
AWARD
Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the Applicant, Shri Asesh Kumar Mishra who as an employee of Punjab National Bank was posted at baharampur Branch. He was served with a chargesheet dated 22nd February, 2010 on the ground of misconduct that while working as Head Cashier at Baharampur Branch of the Bank he made payment of Rs.8,30,000/= to a party on 10th March, 2009 without obtaining any cheque and at the end of the day pretended shortage of Rs.8,30,000/= of cash in his custody. The reply of the Applicant was found not satisfactory, therefore, enquiry was conducted as per provisions of bipartite settlement giving all opportunity to the Applicant to defend his case. After completion of enquiry, report was submitted to the disciplinary authority holding charges leveled against the Applicant proved. Before awarding punishment, the Applicant was given opportunity by the disciplinary authority in which he regretted and cited mental stress, serious sufferings to him and family. He also undertook not to repeat this type of mistake in future. After considering the enquiry report and explanation submitted by the Applicant, the disciplinary authority confirmed the proposed penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits against which appeal was preferred by the Applicant. However, the appellate authority rejected his appeal vide order dated 30th December, 2010. Challenging the order of disciplinary authority dated 6th October, 2010 by which punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the Applicant and the order of appellate authority dated 30th December, 2010 rejecting the appeal of the Applicant against punishment of compulsory retirement, this application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been filed by the Applicant.
2. The Applicant has challenged the punishment of compulsory retirement on the ground that the chargesheet dated 22nd February, 2010 is unsustainable in law and enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the Applicant is illegal, invalid and improper one. He has also challenged the punishment of compulsory retirement being disproportionate, improper and unjustified. Therefore, reinstatement with all consequential benefits has been claimed by the Applicant.
3. The Opposite Party, Punjab National Bank has filed its written statement denying the allegations of the Applicant and has pleaded interalia that the enquiry was conducted as per provisions of the bipartite settlement and the Applicant was given all opportunity to defend his case. It has been further pleaded that the Applicant was posted in the Branch on 1st of November, 2004 and according to his seniority and willingness he was re-designated as Head Cashier which is not a post of promotion, but a special allowance carrying post only. On 10th March, 2009 he made payment of Rs.8.30 lakh to the party without any debit authority causing shortage of cash. The Act of the Applicant was beyond the purview of his duties and his activity was doubtful, therefore, FIR was lodged against him on 12th March, 2009 with the Baharampur Police Station. It is further pleaded that good conduct, discipline and integrity are backbone of the employees of the bank dealing with public money and no bank can keep in its employment a person whose conduct is not upto the mark, who is indiscipline and whose integrity is doubtful. The charges leveled against the Applicant were grave in nature and the punishment so imposed upon him commensurate to the gravity of the charges proved against the Applicant.
4. In reply to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party, Bank, the Applicant has also filed a rejoinder.
5. As the validity of enquiry was challenged by the Applicant, this Tribunal took up that as a preliminary issue and decided the same vide order dated 11th December, 2015 holding that the enquiry was valid, proper and conducted after observing the principles of natural justice.
6. After the enquiry having been held valid and legal, the next question for consideration is regarding the scope of judicial review by the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Tribunal, 1947. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows:
11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of
discharge or dismissal of workmen –
Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re- instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require;
Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter."
7. Taking note of the words "in the course of adjudication", Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Ltd. v The Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 has observed that6860 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"The words 'in the course of adjudication proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or
dismissal was not justified' clearly indicate that the Tribunal is now clothed with the power of reappraise the
evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by the employer
establishes the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally a plausible conclusion that could
be drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the
Tribunal that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitation imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by
the decision in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. case law no longer be invoked by the employer. The Tribunal is
at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct but also
to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the
satisfaction of the employer has ceased to be so and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally
decides the matter."
8. After the enquiry has been held to be valid and legal, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered its effect in Mavji C. Lakum v Central Bank of India, 2008 (7) SCALE 32 in the following words:
"……….Even if the enquiry is found to be fair, that would be only a finding certifying that all possible
opportunities were given to the delinquent and the principles of natural justice and fair play were observe. That
does not mean that the findings arrived at were essentially the correct findings. If the Industrial Tribunal comes
to the conclusion that the findings could not be supported on the basis of evidence given or further comes to the
conclusion that the punishment given is shockingly disproportionate, the Industrial Tribunal would still be
justified in re-appreciating the evidence and/or interfering with the quantum of punishment. There can be no
dispute that power under Section 11-A has to be exercised judiciously and the interference is possible only
when the Tribunal is not satisfied with the findings and further concludes that punishment imposed by the
Management is highly disproportionate with the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. Besides, the
Tribunal has to give reasons as to why it is not satisfied either with the findings or with the quantum of
punishment and that such reason should not be fanciful or whimsical but there should be good reasons."
9. Thus from the above pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is established that the Tribunal has still power to examine the correctness of the findings of the domestic enquiry as to whether findings are supported on the basis of evidence on record. In other words the Tribunal can re-appreciate the findings of enquiry. However, the scope of re-appreciation of evidence is again a matter of controversy. But in catena of cases it has been laid down that reappraisal cannot be that of either or original or that of appellate court, but of revisionsal court. In Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company v. State of West Bengal, 2002-I-LLJ 224 (Calcutta High Court) it has been observed that –
"6. But that reappraisal cannot be that of either the original or of an appellate court, but of a revisional court.
Or, in other words, it is clothed with the additional power of reappraisal of evidence with a revisional court's
outlook. The satisfaction of a court scrutinizing that an employer to justify the action. On such reappraisal it has
to satisfy itself that on such evidence the action could be justified. There remains a thin distinction in the
exercise of such jurisdiction. In the name reappraisal it cannot weigh the evidence in the same manner as an
original or appellate court when the enquiry is found to have been held validly."
10. Thus, it is clear that though the Industrial Tribunal has got power to reappraise the evidence available on record of domestic enquiry, but at the same time the Tribunal has also to bear in mind the thin distinction between an original/appellate decision and revisional decision, while examining for satisfaction about the justificatio0n of the action taken by the employer/disciplinary authority.
11. Scrutinizing the present case from the above angle, the allegations of misconduct against the workman concerned was found to be proved by the evidence adduced during the enquiry. It is alleged that while working as Head Cashier in the Bank he paid Rs.8,30,000/= to one customer of the Bank named Haren Mondal without debiting his account and reported to the Branch Manager shortage of cash of Rs.8.30 lakh from his custody thereby jeopardized the interest of the Bank. The workman concerned has not denied payment of amount to the customer on 10th March, 2009, but he has claimed to have obtained a cheque and endorsement of Branch Manager to pay, against which payment was made but there is nothing on record to show existence of cheue. The matter was reported to the Police Station. However, the amount of Rs.8.30 lakh was deposited in cash by the customer, Shri Haren Mondal. These are the admitted facts as it is evident from the representation submitted by the workman concerned. The workman, Shri Asesh Kumar Mishra had informed the Investigating Officer of the case that on 10th March, 2009 at about 1.45 P.M. Shri Haren Mondal approached him and handedover a cheque of Rs.8,30,000/= requesting for immediate payment. He has also mentioned in his representation, Ext. W-2 that Haren Mondal has accounts in the concerned branch and is a respectable customer of the branch. So he paid him amount hoping that everything will run well. But, unfortunately due to closure of bank credit was not received in his account, hence cheque could not be paid. Though during enquiry, Enquiry Officer has concluded that no trace of cheque was found, but the facts remain that Rs.8,30,000/= was paid by the concerned workman to Shri Haren Mondal without debiting his account. This fact is also proved by the subsequent deposit of the amount on 16th March, 2009. In these circumstances, the conclusion of Enquiry Officer that the workman concerned paid Rs.8,30,000/= to Shri Haren Mondal without debiting his account cannot be said to be based on no evidence or perverse. The Tribunal acting reasonably cannot be said to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, no interference by this Tribunal is warranted.
12. Now the next point for consideration is only with regard to the punishment imposed. Where the enquiry has been found to be valid and there is no perversity in the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer, then only question[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6861 remains for consideration is whether the punishment of dismissal requires interference or not. In this regard Hon'ble the Apex Court in Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v M. Mani, 2018 LLR 2 has observed:
"17. In our opinion, once the Labour Court upheld the departmental enquiry as being legal and proper then the
only question that survived for consideration before the Labour Court was whether the punishment of
"dismissal" imposed by the appellant to the respondents was legal and proper or it requires any interference in
its quantum.
18. In other words, the Labour Court should have then confined its enquiry to examine only one limited question
as to whether the punishment given to the respondents was, in any way, disproportionate to the gravity of the
charge leveled against them and this, the Labour Court should have examined by taking recourse to the
provisions ofSection 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ………"
13. Thus where the action of the disciplinary authority is found to be harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of charges leveled against the concerned workman, the Tribunal has power to interfere with the order of punishment and grant appropriate relief. It is material to note here that the charges against the workman are not of misappropriation of fund, but as a Head Cashier he failed to hold Bank's cash in safe custody and thereby jeopardized the interest of the Bank. It is not denied that the customer, Shri Haren Mondal to whom the amount was paid by the workman concerned was not having account in the Bank. This fact is also not dispute that he had been instrumental in mobilizing fund for the Bank in the past. So, in the present competitive atmosphere among banks in providing personalized services to the customers, a favour by a bank employee to the extent of making hustle-free payment cannot be ruled out. It is admitted fact that the amount paid to the customer was deposited by him after 4 days of lodging FIR. The integrity of the workman concerned is not doubtful as it has been certified by the same Branch Manager to had lodged FIR. The Branch Manager, Shri S.N. Mishra had given a certificate which is Exhibit M-03 that Shri Asesh Kumar Mishra is honest and dutiful an helpful in mobilizing deposits and other bank's business. It is further certified that he has been working in the Branch since 1st November, 2004 and no adverse comment received about him and nothing was found against him since he had taken charge of the Branch. On the basis of this certificate the criminal complaint lodged by the Branch Manager was dropped by the Investigating Officer. Thus, only allegation against the workman can be said to be making of payment against norms and rules of the Bank.
14. Learned counsel for the workman has contended that It may be possible that the workman concerned acted proactively in good faith in making payment which amounts to only an act of negligence, not amounting to misconduct, but his intention cannot be said to be dishonest, as no manipulation in records was found. For his contention learned counsel has relied on Narendra Kumar Tripathi v. Union of India & Others, CDJ 2010 Cal HC 417. It is true that there is no finding of Enquiry Officer that the workman had acted with mala fide intention but his action in making payment cannot be said to be error of judgment or act of negligence by any stretch of imagination. It was also not incorrect judgment as payment was made intentionally knowing that it was not permissible under rules of the Bank. His act was not consistent with due and faithful discharge of his duties. In Union of India v. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 it has been held that if a government servant conducts himself in a way which is not consistent with due and faithful discharge of his duties, it is misconduct. Similarly, an error or omission resulting in serious or atrocious consequences amounts to misconduct. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is misconduct. Thus in view of above case law of the Hon'ble Apex Court conduct of workman was clearly misconduct.
15. Though the workman is said to be an honest employee and there was no complaint against him in past, but his conduct in making payment against rules of the Bank without debiting account cannot be justified only because he was honest employee and have been instrumental in mobilizing fund and business of the Bank, but the punishment awarded against him certainly appears to be harsh and disproportionate to the charges leveled against him and where the punishment is disproportionate and harsh, the Tribunal has power to interfere with the punishment order of compulsory retirement and award appropriate relief. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a lesser punishment would have served the purpose. Throwing away a honest and upright employee from employment of the Bank is not only loss to the Bank but also to the family of the employee concerned. While awarding the punishment the disciplinary authority did not take into account the certificate, Exhibit M-03 issued by the Branch Manager regarding honesty of the workman. Thus the charges proved are not that serious which warrant compulsory retirement.
16. In view of above, punishment of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside and lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments permanently is justifiable. However, it is discretion of the management of the Bank to permit him to work either in cash department or somewhere else.
17. So far as back wages are concerned, no basis or formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In U.P. Brushware Corporation v Uday Narayan Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that payment of back wages is not automatic where the action of the management is set aside. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical ground or otherwise when an order of termination was found to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
18. Further in General Manager, Hariyana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591 it has been held that
"8. There is no rule of thumb that in every case where the IndustrialTribunal gives a finding that the
termination of service was in violation of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, entire back wages should
beawarded. A host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment viz. whether after proper
advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment,
6862 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]namely whether ad-hoc, short-term, daily wages, temporary or permanent in character, any special
qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding
award of back wages. One of the important factors, which has to be taken into consideration is the length of
service which the workman rendered with the employer. If the workman had rendered a considerable period of
service and his services were wrongfully terminated, he may be awarded full or partial back wages keeping in
view the fact that at his age and qualification possessed by him, he may not be in a position to get another
employment. However, where the total length of service rendered by a workman is very small, award of back
wages for complete period viz. from the date of termination till the date of award, which our experience shows
is often quite large would be wholly inappropriate."
19. At the same time the workman is required to prove that he remained unemployed during the period in question. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Navartis Limited v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 124 has held that
"19. There can, however, be no doubt whatsoever that there has been a in the approach of this Court with
regard to payment of back wages. Back wages cannot be granted almost automatically upon setting aside an
order of termination inter alia on the premises that the burden to show that the workman was gainfully
employed during interregnum period was on the employer. This Court in a number of decisions opined that the
grant of back wages is not automatic. Burden of proof that he remained unemployedwould be on the workman
keeping in view the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872."
20. But, in the present case, it is not in dispute that the workman did not raise any plea in the statement of claim/application that he was not gainfully employed during the said period. He has also not stated in his examination-in- chief that he was not employed gainfully for the period in question. A burden lies on the workman to prove this fact and in the present case the workman concerned has failed to do so, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the workman concerned is not entitled to any back wages.
21. Thus to conclude, the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 6th October, 2010 upon the workman, Shri Asesh Kumar Mishra being harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of charges is set aside and reinstating him in service with a lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is awarded to the workman concerned. However, he is not entitled to any back wages. The workman should feel satisfied with his reinstatement.
22. Application of the workman under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed accordingly.
Award is made accordingly.
JUSTICE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata, The 28th November, 2018
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1786.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब ग्रामीण बैंक प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योेगिक अधिकरण नं 2 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 81/2014) को प्रकाषित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07.12.2018 प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/59/2014-आईआर (बी-1)]
बी. एस. बिष्ट, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S. O. 1786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 07.12.2018.
[No. L-12012/59/2014-IR(B-1)]
B. S. BISHT, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT No. 2,
CHANDIGARH
ID No. 81/2014
Shri Amrik Singh , S/o. Shri Piara Singh, H.No77 Germany Dass Park, Kapurthala, Punjab.
…Workman/Claimant[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6863
Versus
The Chairman, Punjab Gramin Bank, Head office Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala Punjab.
… Management/Respondent
AWARD
This Award shall decide a reference which was made to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government letter No.L-12012/59/2014-IR(B-1) dated 3.12.2014 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(in short the Act) for adjudication of an industrial dispute, terms of which are as under:
'Whether the action of the management of Punjab Gramin Bank, Kapurthala, in terminating the services of Shri Amrik Singh s/o. Shri Piara Singh vide order dated 31.1.2004 is just, valid and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter ?'
2. Both parties were put to notice and the claimant., Shri Piara Singh filed his statement of claim, with the averments that he was working as clerk cum cashier under the Management and vide order dated 31/1/2014 the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of his removal from service which would not be a disqualification for future employment. It is stated that before his removal from service, no legal charges were framed against him, though a vague and baseless charge-sheet was served upon him and he was not given a reasonable opportunity to give reply to the charge sheet. According to him, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry illegally and arbitrarily and had rejected the demand of the workman to summon the relevant record. Even otherwise, the punishment inflicted upon the workman is too harsh and does not commensurate to the gravity of alleged charges inasmuch as the Management Bank has not suffered any loss nor any harm has been caused to the reputation of the Bank. Prayer has been made for reinstatement of the claimant with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
3. Management resisted the claim of the Workman, by filing written statement and took preliminary objections that the workman has approached this Tribunal after a gap of 10 years and no proper explanation has been given by him for the delay and therefore the present dispute is not maintainable. While denying the allegations of the claimant, it has been stated that the claimant was found guilty of commission of serious major misconduct and fraudulent activities while he was working as clerk cum cashier, for which a proper charge sheet dated 2/8/2003 was served upon him and he was afforded proper opportunity of hearing. The enquiry officer had conducted the inquiry in fair and reasonable way and adequate opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case. The enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 17/12/2003, on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority had awarded major penalty of removal from service, upon the workman, after opportunity of personal hearing was granted which was availed by the workman on 28/1/2004. Against the order dated 31/1/2003 of the Disciplinary authority, the workman preferred a departmental appeal dated 23/2/2004 which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24/3/2004 as there was no merits in the submissions of the workman. Thus, prayer has been made for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Number of opportunities were granted to the Claimant/workman to lead evidence in support of his claim but he failed to adduce any evidence. He even did not enter the witness box either to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition or to rebut the case of the Management. Perusal of the record shows that the claimant did not appear before the Tribunal from 15/2/2018 onwards despite the fact that matter was adjourned time and again and ultimately this Tribunal was constrained to reserve the matter for passing the award.
5. In view of the fact that the claimant has not led any evidence in support of his case, this Tribunal is constrained to pass No Dispute Award in the matter. Since the matter has not been decided on merits, there will be no bar for the claimant to file afresh claim petition in accordance with law for adjudication of the controversy in issue or to seek any other relief to which he is otherwise entitled to. Award is passed accordingly.
AVTAR CHAND DOGRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1787. —कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उपधारा (3) द्वारा
प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्र्दीय सरकार एत(cid:7375)ारा 1 दिसम्बर, 2018 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है,
जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय – 5 और 6 (धारा -
76 की उपधारा-(1) और धारा-77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है) के उपबंध नागालैंड राज्य
के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात् –6864 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
| राज् य | जिला | राजस् व के न् र्द |
| नागालैंड | मोकोकचु ंग | मोकोकचु ंग म् यूनिसिपल कᲅसिल |
[सं. एस-38013/09/2018-एस.एस.I]
संतोष कु मार सिह, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S.O. 1787.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st December, 2018 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Section 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of
the said Act shall come into force in the following areas of State of Nagaland namely : -
| STATE | DISTRICT | ALL THE AREAS FALLING UNDER |
| NAGALAND | Mokokchung | Mokokchung MUNICIPAL COUNCIL |
[No. S-38013/09/2018-S.S.I]
S. K. SINGH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1788.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स एम.सी.एल. के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेष्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 78/2016) को प्रकाषित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.12.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22013/01/2018-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S. O. 1788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s M.C.L and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.12.2018.
[No. L-22013/01/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR
Present: Shri B.C. Rath, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 78/2016 (Filed under section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act)
Date of Passing Order – 5th June, 2018
Between: 1. M/s. Guru Gobinda Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Contractor), Ananta Opencast Project Area, C/o. MCL, Near Siva Mandir, Po. - Dera Colliery, Talcher, Dist. Angul, Odisha.
2. General Manager, Bharatpur Opencast Project, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, At./Po. Talcher, Dist. Angul, Odisha.
1st Party-Managements[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6865
(And)
Shri Biren Sahoo, At./Po. Ghantapada, Via-Dera, P.S. Colliery, Dist. Angul, Odisha, Pin-759 103. …2nd Party-Disputant
Appearances:
Auth. Representatives. … For the 1st Party- Managements Shri Biren Sahoo. … For himself the 2nd Party- Disputant
ORDER
The 2nd party-applicant and the authorized representatives of the Managements are present. A petition is moved on behalf of the 2nd party-applicant wherein prayer has been made for withdrawal of the dispute on a contention that he had voluntarily abandoned and resigned from service on his own accord on 31.3.2015 and he raised an industrial dispute being instigated by others. Hence, the matter has been resolved amicably and he is no more interested to prosecute the dispute. On being read-over and explained on the content of the petition, the workman admits to have filed the petition voluntarily without being influenced by any one. He, further, submits that he is aware of the contents of the petition which is drafted as per his instruction and knowing the contention to be correct he signed the same. Having regard to the submission advanced by the 2nd party-applicant the application under section 2-A(2) stands dismissed on being withdrawal of the dispute by the 2nd party-applicant.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
B. C. RATH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2018
का. आ. 1789.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स सिंगारेनी कोलियरीज कंपनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, गोदावरिखानी के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या – 85/2015) को प्रकाषित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04.12.2018 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-22013/01/2018-आईआर (सीएम-II]
राजेन्द्र सिंह, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 7th December, 2018
S.O. 1789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 04.12.2018.
[No. L-22013/01/2018-IR (CM-II)]
RAJENDER SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL.DIST. &
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI
Present: SRI SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer,
TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
I.D.No. 85 of 2015
Between:
Jilukara Lingaiah, S/o.Lachaiah, age 52 years, Occ:Ex.Coal Filler Relay C place of work RK 5 Section SRP, R/o.Q.No.ST2-338, Bus stand colony, Godavarikhani (T) of Ramagundam Mandal of Karimnagar District. …Applicant/Workman- Petitioner6866 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
1. The General Manager, SCCL Collieries Company Ltd., Srirampoor, Adilabad.
2. The Superintendent of Mines, RK-5 Incline, Srirampoor Area, SCCL Collieries Company Ltd., Srirampoor, Adilabad Dsitrict.
3. The Chairman and Managing Director,
SCCL Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem … Employer/Respondents/Management
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Kum. E.Shobharani, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Respondents; and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-
AWARD
1. This is a petition filed by petitioner under section 2A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act which herein after will be referred as ID Act for convenience sake with a prayer to set aside the dismissal order vide proceedings reference No.SRP/PER/13.008/1688, dt.29-04-2014 and to direct the respondent No.1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and full back wages. The following is the brief case of petitioner as per his petition:
2. The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on 01-11-1989 on piece rate wages at GDK 6 Incline, his service was regularized and was appointed as coal filler w.e.f., 01-01-1995. He was discharging his duties as per the directions of the management without causing any loss and he served the company a lot. The 1st respondent issued a charge sheet against the petitioner alleging that he was absent from duties without sufficient cause and without sanction of leave from 01-01-2011 to 31-12-2011. A charge sheet in the following terms has been served on the petitioner on 07-06-2012:
"Absent from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or over staying beyond sanctioned leave".
3. The 1st respondent has alleged that the copy of charge sheet was sent to the petitioner through registered post with acknowledgement due and it was returned undelivered by the postal authorities. An enquiry officer was appointed by the 1st respondent and the said enquiry officer conducted enquiry on 20-09-2012 in the presence of presenting officer by name P.Mallaiah, office superintendent G.Mohan, Senior Assistant, RK-5 Incline and S.Lingaiah, General Mazdoor. The petitioner was absent during the enquiry, the 1st respondent has claimed that notice was not served on the petitioner thereby a copy of the said notice was published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily newspaper dt.06-09-2012 with a direction to the petitioner to attend enquiry on 20-09-2012. The 1st respondent dismissed the petitioner w.e.f., 05-05-2014. The petitioner has further pleaded that a criminal case vide Cr.No.175/2007 for the offence under sections 302, 120-B IPC was registered by police Ramakrishnapur. The petitioner was shown as A-4. He has faced the trial before III Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Asifabad in S.C.No.315/2009. The petitioner while furnishing the details of the said criminal case further pleaded that on the complaint of D.Thara that her brother by name Ch.Sudhakar was killed near Edgah (Dargah) of Ramakrishnapur a case was registered and the petitioner herein was shown as accused No.4. After the trial the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Asifabad convicted the petitioner and other (4) accused on 08-02-2010 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each. The petitioner was in jail till 2013, his appeal was allowed by Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner herein was acquitted and released on 04-08-2014. Thereafter he has obtained the copies of dismissal order from the respondent. The petitioner claims that on 09-02-2010 there was a news in all the news papers about the above referred criminal case and involvement of petitioner herein. Since he was in jail he could not inform the respondents about his detention. Even though the respondents have got information, they did not sent any notice to the petitioner nor they tried to serve the notice through jailor, but proceeded with the enquiry.
4. Therefore, according to the petitioner he was not having any information about the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted without service of proper notice on the petitioner. He has also pleaded that the witnesses who were examined at the time of enquiry also got knowledge about the criminal case and imprisonment of the petitioner. The son of the petitioner informed the authorities about the criminal case and that his father was in jail. Even at the time of enquiry the son of the petitioner informed the officials that his father was in jail. Therefore, now the petitioner claims that the above said enquiry results his dismissal from service but in view of the said criminal case he could not participate in the enquiry. As such now he is praying for setting aside the dismissal order and for reinstatement into service with all back wages and attendant benefits. The respondents have opposed this application and R-1 filed a counter which was adopted by the remaining two respondents. The following is the brief case of respondents as per their counter:
5. The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on 01-03-1988, he was regularized as coal filler on 03-01-1995. The respondents have disputed the claim of petitioner that he worked to the satisfaction of the management and put the petitioner to strict proof of his case. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioner was never regular to his duties, he was a chronic absentee who was never put in required musters. Earlier he was served charge sheet dt.26-03-2011 for his unauthorized absenteeism during 2010. After completing disciplinary proceedings he was reverted by (3) special piece rated allowance with cumulative effect vide proceedings dt.25-06-2012. The services of the employees of Singareni Collieries Company are covered by company standing orders. According to the section 52 (2) of Mines Act underground employee required to put minimum musters of 190 and for surface employee 240 days in a year. The petitioner being underground employee he is expected to put him 190 musters in a calendar year. He never put such minimum musters. In 2011 he was charge sheeted under clause 25.31 of company's standing orders. The respondents have furnished the attendance particulars of the petitioner which indicates his attendance in 2007 was 147 and in 2008 it was 155, in 2009 it was 202 whereas in 2010 it was 28. He did not attend the duty from 2011 to 2013. In view of the above stated failure of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : दिसम्बर 15, 2018/अग्रहायण 24, 1940 6867 the petitioner he was served with a charge sheet about his absence to the duties. Since he was continuously absent the charge sheet was sent to the residence of petitioner by registered post by acknowledgement due but it was returned un- delivered. The respondents got the notice published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu newspaper dt.26-09-2012. The petitioner was informed to attend the enquiry scheduled on 20-09-2012 but he failed to appear before the enquiry officer. As such an exparte enquiry was conducted on 20-09-2012. The enquiry officer submitted report against the petitioner herein. A show cause notice was sent to him through registered post which was also returned un-served. Therefore, the respondents got published the said notice in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily newspaper dt.28-06-2013. There was no response from the respondents thereby the petitioner was removed from the service and dismissal order was displayed on the notice board on the respondent company on 05-05-2014. The respondents have claimed that they are not aware of the criminal case filed against the petitioner herein. They have no information nor they have received any letter dt.15-01- 2011. Therefore, according to the respondents they have followed the procedure and the petitioner was removed from service due to his continuous absence to the duties.
6. The respondents have further pleaded there were more than Rs.60,000/- employees which includes workers, executives, supervisors, the production result will depend upon each and every employee they are interlinked. If any one remains absent without prior permission, the work to be performed get effected. The unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at times difficult to fill up and there will be no proper planning. Therefore, the respondent company is compelled to take severe action against the unauthorized absentees. The petitioner is one such unauthorized absentee having put nil musters and failed to improve his attendance and work performance thereby the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. When the matter is posted for enquiry the petitioner filed petition under section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act on 04-04-2017 and reported no objection against the enquiry proceedings. For convenience sake I am reproducing what the petitioner has stated in the said petition.
"In the afore said the applicant/workmen-petitioner filed application set aside the illegal dismissal from the
service vide proceedings dated 29-04-2014 and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in to service
with continuity of service, together with all attendant benefits and with full back wages. The petitioner is not
disputing the procedure and validity of domestic enquiry but the finding are perverse and bias. The Hon'ble
Court has got wide powers and in the interest of justice pleased to proceed with the case by the material
available on record and be pleased to not to make any fresh evidence in relation of the matter.''
8. Therefore, when once he filed a memo under section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act and reported his satisfaction to the domestic enquiry he cannot question the manner in which it was conducted. In the petition itself the petitioner has categorically stated that he is not disputing the procedure and validity of the domestic enquiry but according to him findings given by the enquiry officer are perverse and biased.
Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse or biased, if
so, whether the petitioner can be reinstated into service?
9. The respondents did not dispute the claim of the petitioner that he was involved in a criminal case and he was sentenced to life imprisonment and he was in jail for (5) years and later his appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court etc. In the counter they have claimed that they are not aware of the criminal proceedings. When once the petitioner is sentenced to life imprisonment it may not be possible for him to proceed in the enquiry and to place his claim before the enquiry officer. However in the light of his own petition under section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, now the petitioner cannot question the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer and he cannot question the domestic enquiry. The petitioner claimed that he was convicted by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Asifabad on 08-02- 2010. Therefore, he cannot attended the duties from 08-02-2010 however in the counter the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner was a chronic absentee, he did not put required musters even in 2007, 2008, his attendance in 2007 was 147 whereas in 2008 it was 155. As per the attendance furnished by the respondent the petitioner has put 202 musters in 2009. According to his own claim the petitioner was involved for a murder case and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Therefore, he could not have attended the duties in 2010. There is no explanation from the petitioner for his failure in attending the required musters during 2007, 2008. The petitioner having accepted the domestic enquiry by way of filing petition under section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, now cannot question the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. Since, he did not attend the required musters in 2007, 2008. The findings of the enquiry officer about his continuous absence and about his guilt cannot be set aside. The petitioner was rightly dismissed from service for his absence to the duties. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the Industrial Dispute is dismissed.
Dictated to Senior Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14th day of August, 2018.
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer6868 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 15, 2018/AGRAHAYANA 24, 1940 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN:- FOR MANAGEMENT;-
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS
FOR WORKMAN:-
Ex.W-1 Dt. 16-09-2009 C.C., of judgment in SC.No.19/2009
Ex.W-2 Dt. 14-06-2016 Release certificate
Ex.W-3 Dt. 14-06-2016 Release certificate
Ex.W-4 Dt. 30-08-2011 Original charge sheet
Ex.W-5 Dt. 20-08-2011 Enquiry report
Ex.W-6 Dt. 20-09-2012 Enquiry proceedings
Ex.W-7 Dt. 29-04-2014 Dismissal order
Ex.W-8 Dt. 08-02-2014 C.C., of judgment in S.C.No.315/2009
Ex.W-9 Dt. 18-07-2014 C.C., of judgment in Crl.A.No.279/2010 of Hon'ble High Court
Ex.W-10 Dt. 15-09-2011 Acknowledgement
Ex.W-11 Dt. 04-08-2014 Release order central prison, Warangal
Ex.W-12 Dt. 17-08-2015 Office copy of demand letter postal receipt
Ex.W-13 Dt. -- Postal receipt
Ex.W-14 Dt. -- Acknowledgement
FOR MANAGEMENT:-
Ex.M-1 Dt. 25-06-2012 Punishment order
Ex.M-2 Dt. 07-05-2012 Charge sheet
Ex.M-3 Dt. 06-09-2012 Charge sheet-cum-Enquiry notice published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily News
Paper
Ex.M-4 Dt. 20-09-2012 Enquiry proceedings
Ex.M-5 Dt. 21-09-2012 Enquiry report
Ex.M-6 Dt. 20-05-2013 Notice
Ex.M-7 Dt. -- Un-delivered postal cover with acknowledgement
Ex.M-8 Dt. 28-06-2013 Show cause notice published in Andhra Jyothi daily News Paper
Ex.M-9 Dt. 29-04-2014 Dismissal order
Ex.M-10 Dt. 29-04-2014 Copy of Dismissal order posted on the notice board by taking signature of two
witnesses.
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.