Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ANANT S. DAVE AND G.B SHAH, JJ.
Raj Mahendrasinh Dilavarsinh & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
Competent Authority and Deputy Collector & Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 5948 of 2011
Decided On : 09-09-2016
PETROLEUM AND MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER INLAND) ACT, 1962 - SECTIONS 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 - RULES, 1963 - RULE 4 - ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER - COMPENSATION - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - LAYING OF PIPELINES - RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT - VESTING OF LAND - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 10(4) - ENTITLEMENT - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are the owners/occupiers/farmers of agricultural lands in dispute, challenged the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, GAIL (India) Limited, Vadodara, on the ground that the notice dated 30.11.2009 issued under Section 8 of the Act, 1962 for laying new pipeline for DVPL-II project, is illegal and against the statutory provisions of the Act, 1962. They also sought compensation for the loss incurred by them due to illegal invocation of Section-8 of the Act qua the petitioners' lands.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Competent Authority was not legally bound to follow the gamut of Sections 3, 6, and 7 of the Act, 1962 so far as the strip of land of DAVP-I project for which right of user was already acquired in the year 2002 vested free from all encumbrances for the project DAVP-I and compensation under section 10(1) as well as Section 10(4) was paid. The Court further held that the petitioners were entitled to receive additional compensation under Section 10(4) for the newly acquired strip of 10 meters or more land and modified the impugned order passed by the competent authority to that extent.
Issues: 1. Whether GAIL (India) Limited can lay 610 kms. Gas pipeline of 48” diameter for the DVPL-II project by resorting to notices issued under Section 8 of the P&MP Act, 1962? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive additional compensation under Section 10(4) of the Act and in order to quantify the said additional compensation the market price of land as on the date of Section 3(1) is to be considered?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User Inland) Act, 1962, and the Rules, 1963, and held that: 1. Once the right of user stands acquired, the land owners are not entitled to another compensation for acquisition of right of user over the same land. 2. The right of user so acquired for such land is not surrendered and possession of the land was given after termination of operation of DAVP-I project. Therefore, no compensation is to be paid to owners/occupiers of the land, which was earlier acquired for DAVP-I project as the laying of pipelines will be on the land for which right of user is already acquired and land has vested free from all encumbrances. 3. Land owners/occupiers, who have suffered loss, damage or injury by virtue of exercise of powers under Sections 4, 7 and 8 of the Act, 1962, are entitled for compensation to be paid as per section 10(1) as well as Section 10(4) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the petition and modified the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority to the extent that the petitioners were entitled to receive additional compensation under Section 10(4) for the newly acquired strip of 10 meters or more land.
ANANT S. DAVE, J.
The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following main prayers:
“[A] THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2010 in so far as the same is against the Petitioners, passed by the Respondent No. 1 - Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, GAIL (India) Limited, Vadodara (Annexure-A);
[B] THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO allow the Applications dated 12-05-2010 and 24-05-2010 on behalf of the Petitioners, preferred before the Respondent No. 1, Competent Authority and thereby also direct the Respondents to compensate the loss incurred by the Petitioners, due to illegal invocation of Section-8 of the Act qua the petitioners' lands.
[C] Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of the present Petition, THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 31-12-2010 in so far as against the Petitioners passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, GAIL (India) Limited, Vadodara (Annexure-A); and further also be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 2 and 3 from proceeding and doing any work, invoking Section 8 of the Act;
[D] Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of the present Petition, THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO direct the Respondents to compensate the loss incurred by the Petitioners, due to illegal invocation of Section-8 of the Act qua the petitioners' lands”.
2. The petitioners are the owners/occupiers/farmers of agricultural lands in dispute. In the year 2001, the GAIL India Limited [for short, GAIL] wanted to lay/install the Dahej Vemar Vijapur Gas Pipeline-I Project [for short, DVPL-I Project] and for that purpose, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User Inland) Act, 1962 [for short, the Act, 1962] and on 27.08.2001 Notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, 1962 was published.
2.1 Thereafter, on 24.01.2002 notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1962 was published on 02.02.2002 Accordingly, GAIL started the work of laying the DVPL-I project in May, 2003 and completed the work in 2004. Further, the respondent No. 1 gave general intimation to local authority (Gram Panchayat) about termination of work in August, 2004. After completing the work DVPL-I Project, the possession of lands was returned to the original owners/occupiers/farmers and they are entitled to cultivate their lands, subject to restrictions regarding use of land imposed under Section 9 of the Act, 1962 and subject to power to enter the land for inspection, etc. under Section 8 of the Act, 1962. Accordingly, the petitioners and other affected farmers claimed compensation, as provided under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1962 for loss of crops and cultivation and under Section 10(4) for loss of enjoyment in the lands. Initially, the respondent passed awards qua both compensations but the same were subject matter of challenge before the District Court and proceedings were also carried up to this Court.
2.2 On 02.02.2009, for laying new Pipelines for the DVPL-II project in the year 2009, Notification under Section 3(1) for additional 10 meters wide strip of land parallel and adjacent to earlier Right of User [for short, ‘RoU’] was issued. On 22.09.2009 notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1962 was also issued for the said DVPL-II project for same 10 meters strip of land. On 30.11.2009 for laying new Pipeline for DVPL-II Project in the RoU of earlier DVPL-I project in the case of the petitioners and of similar other affected farmers, notices were issued under Section 8 of the Act, 1962. Notice/intimation for handing over possession under section 8 of the Act of the earlier RoU of DVPL-I Project for laying pipeline of DVPL-II Project was issued warning that if willingly the possession is not handed over, the same would be offence as provided
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
