Point of Law: Acquisition of Land - Larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the notification under Section 20-A is quashed and the public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project

JUDGMENT :

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1. Challenging the action of the Respondents in issuing Notification S.O. 341(E), dated 09.01.2019, and Notification S.O.1800(E), dated 20.05.2019, under Section 3 (1) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, the above four Writ Petitions are filed.

2. Writ Petition No. 11533 of 2019 is filed challenging the Notification, dated 09.01.2019, in S.O. 341(E); while Writ Petition Nos. 7022, 8209 and 9032 of 2019 are filed challenging the Notification S.O. 1800(E), dated 20.05.2019; issued by 1st Respondent, under Section 3 (1) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 [here-in-after referred to as ‘PMP Act’]. By its Order, dated 05.12.2019, the learned Single Judge dismissed all the Writ Petitions with some observations, which led to filing of the present Writ Appeals against the said Common Order.

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved, it would be just and proper to narrate the facts in issue:

i. The Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions are owners of different extents of agricultural land situated in Survey Nos. 348/4, 348/1, 87-A-2, 89-3B, 87-A-1, 89-3A, 336-A2-4, 336/5, 332/2, 336/A2, 336-A2-2B, 336-A2-4, 336-A2-2A, 336-A2-3, 87-A-2, 89-3B, 87-A-1, 89-3A, 305/1A2 and 337/5 of Taderu Village, Bheemavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

ii. A Notification, dated 13.07.2018, came to be issued by the 1st Respondent, proposing to lay gas pipelines through various villages in West Godavari District, for transportation of Natural Gas from ONGC Bantumilli to Ullamparru TOP.

iii. The grievance of the petitioners is that after issuance of Preliminary Notification, dated 13.07.2018, the Central Government finalized and issued a Notification under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, on 07.05.2019, stating that the lands under Notification, dated 13.07.2018, shall be acquired and they shall vest with M/s. GAIL India. In the said Notification, neither the main survey numbers nor the sub-division numbers are mentioned. However, within 12 days thereafter, i.e., on 20.05.2019, the 1st Respondent issued another Notification, dated 20.05.2019, under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, notifying certain survey numbers, in which the Petitioners’ lands formed part, which according to them is illegal and contrary to law.

iv. In other words, the grievance of the Petitioners in W.P. No. 9032 of 2019 [W.A. No. 26/2021], W.P. No. 7022 of 2019 [W.A. No. 28/2021], W.P. No. 8209 of 2019 [W.A. No. 39/2021] and W.P. No. 11533 of 2019 [W.A. No. 29/2021] is that, though, the Petitioners’ lands were not notified, but, the 1st Respondent issued a declaration on 07.05.2019, including the lands in 34 survey numbers out of 38 survey numbers. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent issued another Notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, on 09.01.2019, replacing the survey numbers of the Petitioners in place of survey numbers, which were omitted from the declaration.

4. Various legal issues came to be raised, namely, (a) that, once a declaration is issued and the lands are entrusted to the custody of M/s.GAIL India, for its project, the necessity of acquisition of Right of User mentioned under Section 3(1) Notification is complete and that it is not open to the Central Government to issue another notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, for the very same purpose and there is no necessity to acquire Right of User by changing the alignment in the absence of any new material; (b) that, without application of mind and in a mechanical manner second Notification came to be issued within 12 days from the date of Section 6 declaration; (c) that no material has been placed by 2nd and 3rd Respondents to substantiate their version that reports were sent to the Central Government for change of alignment after the declaration.

5. (i) Sri. V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Report dated 12.03.2019 could not be relied upon for a change in the al