Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice S.Sounthar, J
M.Somasundaram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
All these Writ Petitions are filed challenging the impugned Notification issued by the 5th respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.14/2023/IDPL/Irugur, dated 01.11.2023 under Section 7(1)(i) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, for laying pipeline in the subject lands belonging to the petitioners as part of Irugur-Devangonthi Pipeline Project.
2. In W.P.No.37936 of 2024, the consequential summons issued by the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.No.15/2023/IDPL/dated 27.05.2024 for payment of compensation to the petitioners therein was also challenged. In other writ petitions, the main notification under Section 7(1)(i) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, alone has been challenged.
3. It is the common case of all the petitioners that they are lawful owners and possessors of agricultural lands bearing various survey numbers in Irugur, Kangayampalayam, Sulur Villages of Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District and the said lands are the primary source of their livelihood for their family. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1999, a pipeline project named “Petronet Cochin-Coimbatore-Karur”
Right of user acquired under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act permits subsequent pipeline projects without new notifications if they are connected.
The right of user under the Petroleum Act can vest in multiple entities, and landowners are entitled to compensation for damages despite prior vesting.
Acquisition of Land - Larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the notification under Section 20-A is quashed and the public purpose of the acquisition is the construction an....
Point of law: The provisions of Section 5 and 6 of PMP Act would categorically show that the legislature attached much importance to the objections of the owner of the land in respect of acquisition ....
The court emphasized that it cannot interfere with policy decisions based on suggestions without technical feasibility in a national project.
when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be entertained ignoring the statutory prescription, m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority is required to grant an opportunity of hearing to the objector under Section 5(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeli....
The court upheld the legality of the gas pipeline acquisition, emphasizing public interest and proper procedural adherence by the competent authority.
Water is a mineral within the meaning of Mines Act, 1952 r/ws 2(ba) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.
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
