IMPORTANT POINT
The right of user under the Petroleum Act can vest in multiple entities, and landowners are entitled to compensation for damages despite prior vesting.

JUDGMENT :

[WP(C) Nos.3256/2019 and 12196/2019]

These writ petitions pertain to the interpretation of the various provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) made thereunder, with specific reference to the right of the 4^th respondent in W.P(C) No.3256 of 2019 to lay pipelines through the properties in question. The 1^st petitioner in W.P(C) No.3256 of 2019 is stated to be a Society, wherein petitioners 2 to 5 are members. It is stated that the 4^th respondent – a Private Limited Company has been trespassing into the property of the members of the 1^st petitioner Society like petitioners 2 to 5 for laying pipelines for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas(LPG) from Kochi to Tamil Nadu. The 4^th respondent Company is stated to be a joint venture of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition. The pipeline is stated to start from Kochi to Salem, Tamil Nadu. 2. The petitioners contend that during the year 2000, the Government of India issued a notification under the Act, permitting another Company – M/s.Petronet CCK Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petronet CCK’) for transportation of various petroleum products from Kerala to Tamil Nadu. The notification issued is the one at Annexure R4(a) dated 19.04.2000. They further contend that based on the above notification, the “right of user” of the landed properties of the petitioners were acquired by the Central Government and vested in the Petronet CCK, who in turn laid the pipelines. The petitioners admit that an area of “18 meters” in width over the properties of the petitioners were acquired from Irimpanam in Kochi to Karur, Tamil Nadu, after paying a compensation of 10% of the then market value. They further point out that after the laying of the pipeline, etc., a notification dated 11.06.2004 was issued, declaring 15.12.2002 as the date of termination of operation in the State of Kerala. They contend that after the afore date of 15.12.2002, the “right of user” for the purpose of “laying of the pipeline” through the properties of the petitioners by Petronet CCK has ceased to exist. They further contend that if at all there can be any entry into the property thereafter, that can be only under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act with proper notice to the petitioners. As against the afore, the petitioners contend that the 4^th respondent is encroaching into their properties, citing the “right of user” already acquired for laying of pipelines from Kochi to Tamil Nadu, by a different entity. 3. In such circumstances, the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition seeking a declaration that the respondents have no right to lay pipelines in their properties and also seeking to quash Ext.P2 notification dated 07.01.2019 issued by the State of Kerala, by which an ex gratia compensation of 20% of the fair value or a lumpsum compensation of Rs.15,000/- per land owner, whichever is higher, is fixed, apart from compensation at Rs.3,761/- per cent in respect of paddy land through which the pipeline passes. 4. The prayers in W.P(C) No.12196 of 2019 are also similar to the above.

5. I have heard Sri.Renjith Thampan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Saji Varghese, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent and Smt.Pooja Menon, the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

6. Sri.Thampan, the learned senior counsel, would contend that:

i. The Act visualizes the acquisition of the “right of user in the land” for laying pipelines and that is already over by 15.12.2002, when the completion of the project was declared. In the light of the above, the 4^th respondent does not get any right to enter the properties of the petitioners.

iii. The declaration under Section 6(1),