SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, CJI., A.K. Sikri, R. Banumathi, JJ.
Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Etc. - Appellants
Versus
Gail India Limited & Ors. Etc. - Respondents
C.A. No(S). 759-761, 762, 763 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No(s).37224-37226, 37694 of 2013) With (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 452 of 2014) And T.P.(C) No. 228/2014
Decided On : 2-02-2016
(b) Compensation – Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 envisaging payment of 10% of market value of land leaving determination of market value to the competent authority – GAIL willing to pay 10% of market value of land as on 1st January, 2016 to be stipulated by State Government on basis of circle rate/guideline/notification – GAIL also agreeing to pay 30% of compensation additionally although there is no provision of solatium in the Act – Offer of GAIL accepted being fair – The solatium, however, should not be treated as part of scheme of the Act – Any land owner still not satisfied may move District court for determination u/s 10(2). (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
A prestigious gas pipeline project of Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) between Kochi-Kootanad-Mangalore-Bangalore has been planned for execution by it. The acquisition of right of user in land was undertaken and duly notified. Declarations in terms of Section 6(2) were published whereupon the right of user in the lands stood vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
The declarations have been assailed in a batch of writ petitions filed by seven owners whose lands are affected which petitions are pending adjudication before the High Court. Apart from the said petitions, there was no other challenge to the declarations by any other farmer or association whatsoever. This implies that the declarations under Section 6 and the vesting of the right of user in terms of Section 6(2) has attained finality except to the extent the same is challenged at the instance of the seven owners.
The operations of GAIL met with some resistance from the farming community. GAIL approached the State Government for police protection and assistance in implementing its project. Eventually on intervention of the Court the State Government undertook some kind of exercise in which it claims to have heard the agitating farmers and all other stakeholders. Based on the deliberation so held the State Government issued a communication dated 2nd April, 2013 by which it directed GAIL to take certain actions.
GAIL preferred Writ Petition which has been allowed along with analogous petitions.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly quashing the State Government directions.
Result: Appeal partly allowed. I.A. dismissed as withdrawn. Transfer petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Leave granted in the special leave petitions
2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 25th November, 2013 passed by the High Court of Madras whereby W.Ps. No.12897, 15102 and 9542 of 2013 have been allowed and a communication dated 2nd April, 2013 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu directing the respondent-Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL) to lay gas pipeline along the National Highways without affecting the agricultural lands in the State of Tamil Nadu quashed.
3. A prestigious gas pipeline project of Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) between Kochi-Kootanad-Mangalore-Bangalore has been planned for execution by the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL). The laying/construction of the proposed pipeline involves acquisition of right of user in land required for the project under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Act 50 of 1962) hereinafter referred to as "the Right to User Act" and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006. It is not in dispute that the acquisition of right of user in land was undertaken and duly notified in terms of the provisions of the Act aforementioned. Several notifications dated 20th April, 2012, 25th May, 2012, 7th March, 2012, 4th January, 2012, 27th December, 2011 and 19th December, 2011 covering seven different districts in the State of Tamil Nadu, namely, Coimbatore, Tiruppur, Erode, Salem, Dharmapuri, Namakkal and Krishnagiri have been issued under Section 6(1) of the said Act. In terms of Section 6(2) upon publication of the declarations, mentioned above, the right of user in the lands specified in the said notifications stands vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. It is not in dispute that the declarations aforementioned have been assailed in a batch of writ petitions filed by seven owners whose lands are affected which petitions are pending adjudication before the High Court of judicature at Madras. Apart from the said petitions, there was no other challenge to the declarations by any other farmer or association whatsoever. This implies that the declarations under Section 6 and the vesting of the right of user in terms of Section 6(2) has attained finality except to the extent the same is challenged at the instance of the seven owners, referred to above.
4. With the vesting of the Right to User in the Central Government, GAIL the beneficiary of the acquisition appears to have started its operations which met with some resistance from the farming community. GAIL appears to have approached the State Government for police protection and assistance in implementing its project, but since the Government was reluctant to give any such protection, it was left with no option but to file Writ Petition No.17216 of 2012 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to provide the required protection to its officials, contractors and agents for laying the its pipeline. That petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Madras by an order dated 26th July, 2012. Aggrieved, GAIL preferred Writ Appeal No.1666 of 2012 which was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of that High Court by an order dated 4th October, 2012 directing the Government of Tamil Nadu and its officials to convene a meeting of all stakeholders along with GAIL to find a workable solution in the matter. The State Government appears to have accordingly undertaken some kind of exercise in which it claims to have heard the agitating farmers and all other stakeholders. Based on the deliberation so held the State Government issued a communication dated 2nd April, 2013 by which it directed GAIL to take the following actions:
(1) GAIL should take steps for laying pipeline alongside the National Highways without affecting the agricultural lands of farmers of Tamil Nadu.
(2) GAIL may take steps laying pipeline along side of the National Highways and take necessary steps for supplying LNG to Tamil Nadu.
(3) GAI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.