Point of law: Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created. Faced with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the judgment of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and Others (supra) came out with the solution which is equitable to both sides. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively

JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

(Taken up through video conferencing)

1. Assailing the Order, dated 22.10.2020, passed in W.P.No.682 of 2019, the present Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

2. The Government of India undertook transportation of petroleum products from Paradeep in the State of Orissa to Hyderabad through State of Andhra Pradesh, vide project styled as ‘Paradeep-Hyderabad Pipeline Project’ [here-in-after referred to as ‘Project’].

3. In the process of laying the pipelines, there arose necessity to acquire the right of user in respect of petitioners’ land under the provisions of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 [here-in-after referred to as ‘PMP Act’]. Pursuant thereto, a Notification, dated 06.09.2017, came to be issued under Section 3(1) of PMP Act, covering different extents of lands in villages of Gaddamanugu, Cheruvumadhavram, Sunnampadu, Loya, Kavuluru, Munagapadu and Chevuturu in G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. It is averred in the affidavit filed, that originally the pipeline alignment was going in a straight line between Konduru Village and Indian Oil Corporation Limited terminal at Kowluru Village, but, however, the same was changed and another Notification was also issued in that regard.

4. The Notification in respect of land, which is subject matter of Writ Petition, came to be issued on 04.01.2018 under Section 5 (2) of the PMP Act, 1962 and later a declaration under Section 6 (1) on 11.04.2018. It is said that, without considering the objections of the Writ Petitioners, an Order came to be passed on 04.01.2018 in terms of Section 5 (2) of PMP Act, 1962 and, thereafter, the 2nd Respondent forwarded a report to the Central Government as required under Section 6 (1) of PMP Act, 1962. The Central Government issued a declaration under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act vide Gazette Notification No. 637, dated 11.04.2018, declaring acquisition of right of user in respect of lands of the Petitioner i.e., the Appellant herein. Challenging the said Notification issued, a Writ Petition was filed.

5. Initially, an interim order was passed on 29.01.2019, which was subsequently extended vide Orders dated 21.11.2019 and 02.01.2020. After filing of counters along with vacate stay applications, a learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring to the provisions of the PMP Act and the judgments of the Apex Court, in this regard, disposed of the Writ Petition, holding as under:

(a) The petitioners are entitled to compensation to be determined under Section 10(4) of the PMP Act, however, on the market value of the lands existing as on the date of filing of the writ petitions.

(b) The petitioners who filed objections before the competent authority alone are entitled to receive the compensation as indicated above.

(c) The petitioners who have already received compensation during the pendency of the writ petitions are not entitled to compensation as indicated in item-(a).

(d) Any grievances with regard to determination of compensation as indicated in item-(a) may be agitated before the competent District Court under Section 10 (2) of the PMP Act.

(e) The compensation as indicated in item-(a) shall be paid within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court.

16. Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed with the directions as indicated above, with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) in each writ petition, to be borne by respondent No.2.

6. Challenging the same, present Writ Appeal No.371 of 2020 was filed by the Writ Petitioner; while Writ Petition No. 420 of 2020 came to be filed by the Respondents therein. However, the said Writ Appeal No. 420 of 2020 was dismissed as withdrawn.

7. Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that the findings of the learned Single Judge, in arriving at the conclusion referred to above are illegal, improper and incorrect. In other words, the main pl