Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

Case Details * Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. * Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Abhay J. Mantri, JJ. * Parties: Dilip Manikrao Dhande and ors. (Petitioners) vs. Union Of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and ors. (Respondents). * Petitions: Writ Petition Nos. 404, 1419, 2504, and 761 of 2024. * Date Decided: 01-04-2025. * Outcome: Petitions dismissed; Section 10(4) of the PMP Act upheld as constitutional.

Core Legal Issues * Constitutional Validity of Section 10(4): The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 10(4) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (PMP Act), arguing that the compensation cap of 10% of the market value is arbitrary, oppressive, and violates property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution. (!) (!) * Applicability of RFCTLARR Act, 2013: The petitioners contended that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) should apply to acquisitions under the PMP Act to ensure "just and fair compensation," arguing that the deprivation of land use is akin to land acquisition. (!) (!) (!) * Comparison with National Highways Act: The petitioners argued that Section 6(2) of the PMP Act and Section 3-D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 are pari materia (similar in nature), implying that the compensation provisions of the NH Act should apply to the PMP Act. (!) (!)

Court's Reasoning and Findings * Precedent on Constitutional Validity: The Court held that the Apex Court in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat had already considered and negatived the constitutional validity challenges (except regarding the appointment of the competent authority). Therefore, re-agitating these issues was impermissible. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Nature of Acquisition (Land vs. Right of User): The Court distinguished the PMP Act from the NH Act. Under the NH Act, the "land" itself vests in the government, whereas under the PMP Act, only the "right of user" to lay and maintain pipelines in the subsoil vests, while title and possession remain with the landowner. Thus, the provisions are not pari materia. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Reasonableness of Compensation: The Court found the compensation scheme reasonable. Section 10 provides compensation for actual damage/loss (Sections 4, 7, 8) in addition to an extra 10% of the market value specifically for the acquisition of the right of user. This dual structure was deemed adequate and not illusory. (!) (!) * Inapplicability of RFCTLARR Act: * Section 105(1) of the RFCTLARR Act explicitly states its provisions do not apply to enactments in the Fourth Schedule (which includes the PMP Act) unless the Central Government issues a specific notification under Section 105(3). * No such notification under Section 105(3) was issued within the mandatory one-year timeframe. * A notification issued under Section 113 (Power to remove difficulties) dated 28.08.2015 was held invalid as it could not substitute the mandatory notification under Section 105(3) which had lapsed due to time. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * Equality and Classification: The Court rejected the plea of arbitrariness, stating that the classification between acquiring "land" (NH Act) and acquiring "right of user" (PMP Act) is based on a real and substantial distinction, satisfying the principle of equality. (!)

Final Decision * The petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 10(4) of the PMP Act are dismissed. * The Court affirmed that the compensation provisions are reasonable, do not violate Article 300-A, and the RFCTLARR Act is not applicable to the PMP Act in the absence of a valid Section 105(3) notification. (!) (!)