( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application has been filed by late Shri Parikh Ramlal govindlal challenging the order dated 31. 3. 1994 passed by the Jt. Dist. Judge, mehsana under Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition etc.) act, 1962. (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1962 ). During the pendency of this special Civil Application, on the death of parikh Ramlal Govindlal, one Deviben has been substituted as his heir.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner and occupant of land bearing Survey No. 1953 and 1954 in village Kadi, District Mehsana. Proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1962 for acquiring the right of user for the purpose of laying down pipelines from junction point to GGS/ctf South Kadi in kadi oilfield by the respondent Oil and natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ONGC ). After completing the necessary formalities on 23. 5. 1974, the original petitioner had executed necessary kabulatnama. Thereafter the pipelines were laid down in the land admeasuring 14 Ares and 25 sq. metres of Survey No. 1954 and 20 Ares and 85 sq. metres in the land of survey No. 1953. In the kabulatnama, some details of the standing trees and plants were given. The petitioner claimed compensation as against the trees for a sum of Rs. 8300/ -. He also claimed compensation for the land in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. The competent Officer, under the Act of 1962, considering the soil, situation and rising trend of the land value in last 10 years, determined the market value of the land at rs. 225/- per Are and awarded compensation, 10% of the same at Rs. 22. 50 per Are for acquisition of right of user under Section 10 (4) of the Act of 1962. In view of this, the Competent Authority calculated the compensation at Rs. 2,563/75.

( 3 ) THE matter was carried to the Court of the Jt. District Judge, Mehsana under. Section 10 of the Act of 1962 at the instance of the original petitioner Parikh Ramlal govindlal. The learned Jt. District Judge, in a detailed and well reasoned order, has stated that the claimant did not led any evidence with respect to the actual loss. He found that there is nothing in the statement of claimant as to how many trees have been uprooted. The Jt. District Judge also considered the statement of one Virendra mehta, Superintending Engineer, wherein he has stated that no damage was caused to the trees during the laying down of the pipelines. Thus, considering the entire materials on record, the Learned Judge dismissed the Civil Misc. Application.

( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. Patel, Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the material on record. He has invited my attention to the kabulatnama at Annexure a dated 23. 6. 1974 and contended that there was a specific claim for a sum of Rs. 8,300/- with respect to the trees and plants and a sum of rs. 25,000/- with respect to compensation for the land. It is also submitted that certain sale instances were given with respect to the market value of the land but the same have not been considered either by the competent authority or by the Jt. District judge.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to have a brief survey of the provisions of the Act of 1962. The act of 1962 was enacted with a view to provide for acquisition of right of user in land for laying down pipelines for the transport of petroleum and minerals enacted thereafter. Section 3 of the Act provides that whenever it appears to the Central government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum or any minerals from one locality to another locality pipelines may be laid by that Government and for that purpose it may become necessary to acquire the right of user in any land. In such eventuality, the government may issue a declaration on its intention to acquire the right of user therein. Section 4 empowers a person authorised by the