The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 10(4) of the PMP Act, affirming that compensation provisions are reasonable and do not violate property rights under Article 300-A.

JUDGMENT :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the rival parties.

3. The Petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 10(4) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “PMP Act 1962” for short) on the ground that it is arbitrary, oppressive, unjust, unfair and also amounts to violation of the rights of the citizens such as the Petitioners, to hold the property in terms of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.404/2024, submits that coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “RFCTLARR Act” for short) was a revolutionary action on the part of the Union, in combining all the provisions regarding compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, which were not existing earlier in point of time, and relating them to the market value of the land. He further submits, that though the State may acquire land, the same has to be for just and fair compensation and it is only if it is held, that the RFCTLARR Act, is applicable to the vesting under the PMP Act 1962, then such a result could be obtained, in which circumstances, the owner would get just and fair compensation in terms of the RFCTLARR Act.

4.1. He compares Section 6(2) of the PMP Act 1962 with that of Section 3-D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “NH Act 1956” for short), to contend that they are pari materia, in view of which, the provisions of the NH Act 1956 will have to be held to be applicable to the acquisition under the PMP Act 1962.

4.2. He further contends, that under the PMP Act 1962 an area, of nearly 20 meters on either side of the pipeline which is at a depth of 2 to 4 meters at places, stands unusable and unavailable, to the landowner, which in fact, would be a species of vesting of the land as contemplated by the RFCTLARR Act, on account of which, the provisions thereunder for the purpose of grant of compensation would become applicable.

4.3. He further submits, that on account of the applicability of the doctrine of eminent domain, the landowners having title over the property, cannot be deprived of the same, without just and fair compensation being paid, which would equally apply, for being deprived even to the right to use the land as contemplated by the provisions of the PMP Act of 1962 and the compensation of 10% of the market value, cannot be said to be just and fair for such deprivation.

4.4. He further invites our attention to para 22 and 23 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RFCTLARR Act, to contend, that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation, to the provisions of the other statutes relating to acquisition. In fact, it is his contention, that the entire law regarding acquisition including those contained in 13 Acts, which are indicated in Fourth Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, has been merged into the RFCTLARR Act by providing acquisition, compensation and rehabilitation in respect to the lands also acquired under these Statues.

4.5. He further submits, that the ready reckoner value is not a market value, for at times transactions are at even higher rate and may be at times, the correct value is not reflected in the transactions, and therefore, on this count the cut-off limit of 10% is unreasonable and unjust, as there is no basis for the same.

4.6. He further submits, that for all agricultural purposes, a landowner is deprived of the ownership of the land inasmuch as consequent to the vesting of the right of the user in the Authority he cannot make any construction or plant any trees or for that matter take any crop, over a distance, to the length of the pipeline passing through the fields of the owner and across the distance of