Point of Law: Compensation - Government was certainly justified in creating a package specifically for that class of persons, even though the same were not made available for the land owners of the properties involved in Phase I of the project.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL for short) is engaged in the establishment of the “Kochi-Koottanad-Bangalore-Mangalore Gas pipeline” to facilitate which, a notification dated 03.09.2010 was issued under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMP Act’ for short) leading to the Right of User being acquired on the properties of the petitioners. It is without contest that the petitioners were granted eligible compensation under the “PMP Act” without much of delay.

2. While so, certain new notifications were issued to aid the same project and the Government of Kerala initially came out with a package of compensation, through G.O. (Rt.) No. 7325/2012/RD dated 29.12.2012, which was thereafter modified through G.O. (Rt.) No. 3195/13/RD dated 04.06.2013 - a copy of which is on record as Ext.P2 along with W.P. (C) No. 19957 of 2020. Subsequently, a further order was issued by the Government, bearing number G.O. (Rt.) No. 5165/2017/RD dated 01.12.2017, fixing the market value of the property for the purpose of computing compensation under the “PMP Act” as being ten times of its notified Fair Value.

3. On being informed of the afore notification – which shall hereinafter be referred to as the “2017 order” the petitioners put forth a claim that they are also entitled to the benefits under the said order, even though their lands were acquired in the year 2010. When this was not acceded to, they have approached this Court through these writ petitions.

4. I am hearing the afore two writ petitions together because the factual factors are analogous and the reliefs sought for are similar, if not, identical.

5. The argument on behalf of the petitioners were impelled by Shri P. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 2133 of 2020 and Shri S.K. Balachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 19957 of 2020.

6. The learned counsel argued that the “2017 order” is egregiously improper and illegal because it gives benefits to certain land owners, while denying it to persons like the petitioners, merely because their lands were acquired on an earlier point of time. They argued that the discrimination is glaring and that the classification of the land owners into two different categories is without any intelligible differentia and does not sub-serve any cogent purpose; and consequently that the “2017 order” is liable to be set aside by this Court to the extent to which it excludes them.

7. This Court heard these matters on several days past, and on 07.09.2021 when it was listed, a specific adscititious submission was made on behalf of the petitioners that certain property owners, on whose lands the Right of User had been acquired pursuant to the notification dated 03.09.2010 were offered the benefit of the “2017 order.” This Court found the afore allegation - without finding it to be genuine - to be one that required the response of the GAIL, as also the Government of Kerala and I adjourned these matters with the following order on that day:

“1. Shri Mohammed Rafi, learned counsel appearing for the GAIL, submits that the order of the Government of Kerala dated 01.12.2017 is applicable only to acquisition that happened subsequent to their first notification dated 03.09.2010. He added that acquisition of the petitioners' properties was done based on the notification dated 03.09.2010; while that with respect to the properties mentioned in the Government Order dated 01.12.2017 was based on subsequent notifications.

2. However, I do not see any such pleading or material having been placed on record by the GAIL.

3. I, therefore, adjourn these matters to be called on 16.09.2021 for the GAIL to produce necessary orders.

I must also record that if all the acquisitions happened, as alleged by the petitioners, based on the notification dated 03.09.2010, I find no justification for the Government of Ke