Non-issuance of prior notice impacts the compensation determination process under relevant pipelines act, allowing petitioners to file for just compensation.

1. The affidavit-of-service as filed on behalf of the writ petitioners is taken on record.

2. On behalf of the respondent/State, Mr. De has submitted a report dated 09.06.2025 as prepared by the respondent no.8/authority. The said report dated 09.06.2025 is taken on record.

3. On behalf of the writ petitioners a composite exception in the form of an affidavit is filed. The same is also taken on record.

4. On perusal of the petition under consideration and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that the grievances of the writ petitioners are basically two folds, namely, non-receipt of notice regarding determination of compensation, as made by the respondent no.8/authority on account of acquisition of right of user of land under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act of 1962’, in short) and inadequacy of compensation as determined by the respondent no.8/authority under cover of two memos dated 15.09.2022 and 25.11.2024, copies of which has been annexed with the report dated 09.06.2025 with the mark Annexures A-5 and A-6.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that from the said Annexures A-5 and A-6 of the report dated 09.06.2025, it would reveal that endorsements to the effect ‘letter not received’ are made at the bottom of the said two memos dated 15.09.2022 and 25.11.2024, especially when, it is the specific case of the writ petitioners that no prior notice was sent to the writ petitioners by the respondent no. 8/authority while determining the compensation and further after determination of compensation any further notice was served.

6. At this juncture, Mr. Roy draws attention of this Court to Rule 5 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 1963’ in short). It is submitted that the Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1963 mandates that an aggrieved party shall have to make an application before the jurisdictional District Judge not later than 90 days of the receipt of the information regarding determination of the amount of compensation by the competent authority who is the respondent no. 8 herein.

7. Mr. Roy further submits that Section 10 (5) of the said Act further contemplates that in the event the market value of the land as determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties such compensation shall have to be decided by the jurisdictional District Judge on an application by either of the parties. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that since it is the specific case of the writ petitioners that the competent authority has determined the compensation without causing prior service of notice upon the writ petitioners and since even after determination of compensation, no notice was served upon the writ petitioners, appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners in terms of the prayers made in the instant writ petition so that the writ petitioners can approach the jurisdictional District Judge by filing an application under Section 10 (5) of the said Act read with Rule 5 of the said Rules of 1963.

8. Mr. De, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State and Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the GAIL authority, however, disputed such contention.

9. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India supports the contention of Mr. De, learned AGP for the State.

10. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it appears to this Court that admittedly there lies a dispute with regard to the service of notice upon the writ petitioners by the respondent no. 8/authority prior to determination of the