Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
K. Srinivasulu - Appellants
Vs.
The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21491 of 2020
Decided On : 07-12-2020
PETROLEUM AND MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962 - SECTION 3(1), 5(2), 6(1), 6(2), 7, 10 - RULES, 1963 - RULE 4(A) - RIGHT TO USER OF LAND - PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - PANCHANAMA - ADVANCE NOTICE - PREMATURE WRIT PETITION:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the action of respondents in not conducting Panchanama to his land for laying gas pipeline under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (PMP Act). Petitioner's father had submitted objections to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, which were rejected by the Competent Authority under Section 5(2). A notification under Section 6(1) was issued by the Central Government, vesting the right to user in the land with the respondents. Petitioner received a notice under Section 10 r/w Rule 4 of the Rules, 1963, informing him about the Panchanama to be conducted for assessing compensation. Petitioner issued a legal notice challenging the order under Section 5(2) and filed the instant writ petition alleging that respondents were digging trenches without conducting Panchanama.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the respondents had followed due procedure for acquiring the right to user of the petitioner's land and that the right to user had vested with them upon publication of the Section 6(1) notification. The court noted that the petitioner's objections had already been negated in the order under Section 5(2) as they did not fall under the exceptions mentioned in Section 7 of the PMP Act. The court also noted that the respondents had stated in their counter that they would issue an advance notice to the petitioner before conducting Panchanama to enable him to attend and assist in the assessment of compensation and damages. The court found that the writ petition was premature as trenching of the land had not yet started.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents had followed due procedure for acquiring the right to user of the petitioner's land? 2. Whether the petitioner's objections to the acquisition were valid? 3. Whether the respondents were required to conduct Panchanama before digging trenches on the petitioner's land? 4. Whether the writ petition was premature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondents had followed due procedure for acquiring the right to user of the petitioner's land in accordance with the provisions of the PMP Act and the Rules. 2. The court held that the petitioner's objections to the acquisition were not valid as they did not fall under the exceptions mentioned in Section 7 of the PMP Act. 3. The court held that the respondents were required to conduct Panchanama before digging trenches on the petitioner's land in order to assess compensation and damages. 4. The court held that the writ petition was premature as trenching of the land had not yet started and the respondents had undertaken to issue an advance notice to the petitioner before conducting Panchanama.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the respondent authorities shall issue an advance notice to the petitioner before conducting Panchanama to enable him to attend the Panchanama proceedings and assist the staff to assess the compensation and the extent of damages.
ORDER :
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.
1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent in not conducting Panchanama to the land of the petitioner for laying gas pipeline vide proceedings No. C.A./A.P/Ananthapuramu/Bukkarayasamudram/Podaralla/01/2020 dated 10.06.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land.
2. The petitioner is the owner of land situated in Sy. No. 71 & 73 to an extent of Ac. 0.41 cents and Ac. 1.20 cents situated in Vadiyampeta Village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Ananthapuram District. The 1st respondent issued notification No. 60 under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Act, 1962 (for short, 'the PMP Act, 1962') and the petitioner's father Lakshmaiah submitted his objections dated 12.02.2020 to the Competent authority. Thereafter, it appears the Competent authority rejected the objections and passed an order under Section 5(2) of the PMP Act, 1962 vide proceedings No. C.A./A.P/Ananthapuramu/Bukkarayasamudram/Podaralla/01/2020 dated 10.06.2020 and informed that due compensation as specified under Section 10 of the PMP Act, 1962 will be granted to those owners in whose subsoil the gas pipeline will be laid. It appears thereafter notification No. 2172 was issued by the Central Government under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 on 28.07.2020. Thereafter, a notice in C.A./A.P/Ananthapuramu/Bukkarayasamudram/Podaralla/2020 dated 26.09.2020 was issued under Section 10 r/w Rule 4 of the Petroleum & Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules, 1963') by the Competent authority informing to the owners that the staff of the respondent authorities will visit the lands for conducting Panchanama and the owners can submit the claims for compensation. At that juncture, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 10.06.2020 to the Competent authority and 2nd respondent challenging the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Competent authority in terms of Section 5(2) of the PMP Act, 1962. In the notice the petitioner called upon the respondents to stop the digging work and vacate the schedule property. The Competent authority issued a reply dated 24.10.2020 stating that the project was approved by the Ministry of Petroleum and Minerals of India and public interest is involved in the project and after laying the pipeline the land will be again restored to the petitioner for using the same for agricultural purpose. It was also mentioned that the petitioner can approach the District Court if compensation is not acceptable to him. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Respondent filed counter and opposed the petition inter alia contending that after publication of notification, a notice dated 02.01.2020 under Section 3(1) was issued to the father-cum-land owner on 04.02.2020 by the Competent authority calling for objections within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice, to which he submitted his objections dated 12.02.2020. Thereafter, another notice dated 02.05.2020 was issued by the Competent authority directing the owners to participate in the enquiry to be held on 08.05.2020. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the enquiry and the Competent authority passed an order under Section 5(2) of the PMP Act, 1962 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, stating that there was no possibility of changing the alignment of the pipeline. Thereafter, the Central Government issued notification under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 dated 28.07.2020. The notice under Section 6(1) was also served on the owners of the respective properties. Thereafter, a notice dated 26.09.2020 was served by the Competent authority stating that Panchanama will be conducted under Rule 4(A) of the Rules and requested the owners to co-operate with the team of officers. The land owners were
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
