For the purpose of laying pipelines for transportation of petroleum, authorities can get the standing crops etc. cut away.

While the constitutional validity of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of right of User in land) Act, 1962 (for brevity "the Act") is under challenge in W.P.No.41887 of 2002, the proceedings initiated for acquisition of right of user in the land under the said Act are assailed in the other writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.21449, 21450 of 2000, 583, 843 to 845, 1191, 3344, 1032, 1033, 958 and 959 of 2001.

2.1. Challenge is made to the Act on the following grounds:

(I) the provisions of the Act violate the second proviso to Article 31-A read with Article 300A of the Constitution of India;

(II) while the Act empowers the competent authority to acquire the right of user in the land, under which pipelines may be laid and issue a notification for such acquisition declaring the intention to acquire the right of user in the land by exercising the power conferred under Section 3(1) of the Act, there is no specific provision empowering the authorities to acquire the trees attached to the lands and in the absence of such power, the respondents have no authority either to acquire or remove the trees; nor to prevent further plantation of the trees, as it would otherwise be contrary to the object of the legislation, viz., that the Act is intended to permit the owner or occupier of the land to use the land for the purpose for which such land was put to use immediately before the date of the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. In other words, in the absence of any provision for acquisition of the trees, the authority given under Section 4 of the Act to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle, is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), second proviso to 31A and 300A of the Constitution of India;

(III) while Section 9(1) of the Act permits the owner or occupier of the land in question to use the land for the purpose for which the said land was put to use immediately before the date of notification for acquisition under Section 3(1) of the Act, the restriction imposed on the owner or occupier of the land under proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act, namely that the owner or occupier shall not (i) construct any building or any other structure; (ii) construct or excavate any link, well, reservoir or dam; or (iii) plant any tree, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

(IV) Even though Section 10 of the Act provides for awarding compensation, there is no specific provision thereunder for providing compensation for the trees that are cut down or removed while acquiring the right of user in the land by invoking the powers conferred under Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Act, referred to above. In the absence of any such specific provision for providing compensation for the trees, the very legislation, more particularly Section 10 of the Act is violative to the second proviso to Article 31A read with Article 300A of the Constitution of India; and

(V) in view of the acquisition of the right of user in land under the provisions of the Act, the owner or occupier is entitled for compensation determined by the competent authority as provided under Section 10 of the Act and that too within a reasonable time. While the scheme of the Act specifically provides time of limitation for all other purposes, no such reasonable time is prescribed under Section 10 of the Act, and therefore, the Act is liable to held arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2.2. Apart from the above contentions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that:

(i) the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Act are illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice as the respondents have not conducted any further enquiry after receipt of the objections from the petitioners,