Bombay High Court
Dipak S/O Vasantraoji Choudhari And … vs Union Of India, Thr. Its Sec. Ministry Of … on 1 April, 2025
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2025:BHC-NAG:3722-DB
1 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 404 OF 2024
1. Dilip Manikrao Dhande
Age-54 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o. Ward no. 5, Azad Chowk Tarsa,
Tarsa, Tah. Mauda, Tarsa,
Nagpur, 441106.
2. Rama Mahadeo Wandhre
Age- 41 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o. Ward no. 1, At Post- Tarsa,
Tah. Mauda, Nagpur 441106.
3. Nirmala Purushottam Bhole
Age- 48 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o Ward no. 5, At Post- Tarsa,
Tah. Mauda, Nagpur, 441106.
4. Kalpana Purushottam Wandhre
Age-40 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o Ward no. 5, At Post- Tarsa,
Tah. Mauda, Nagpur, 441106.
5. Bhagwan Sampat Pise
Age-74 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o Ward no. 4, At Post- Tarsa,
Tah. Mauda, Nagpur, 441106.
6. Narmada Ratanji Nanhore
Age- 76 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o Ward no. 4, At Post- Tarsa,
Tah. Mauda, Nagpur, 441106.
7. Surekha Satyawan Lambat
Age- 40 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
2 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
R/o Dnanath Ward, Mu. Post. Pipri,
Pipri, Bhandara, 441906.
8. Baliram Natthuji Mehar
Age- 70 Yrs., Occ-Agricultural
R/o Mu. Isapur, Post. Babdeo,
Tah. Mauda, Nagpur, 441106.
9. Changdeo Vasudeo Giradkad
Age-58 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o At. Tarsa, Post - Tarsa,
Taluka Mauda, Nagpur, 441106.
10. Keshaw Shamrao Pise
Age-62 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o Ward no. 4, At Post- Tarsa,
Tah. Mauda, Nagpur, 441106.
11. Ankush Prasad Narayan Pande
Age- 74 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o Ward no. 4, At Post- Tarsa,
Tah. Mauda, Tarsa, Nagpur, 441106.
12. Asha Anil Khandagale
Age- 65 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o Sawali, Tah. Kalmeshwar,
Nagpur, 441106.
13 Gajanan Balchandra Meshram
Age-46 Yrs., Occ- Agricultural
R/o Mangali Gosawi, At Post-Tarsa,
Tah. Mauda, Tarsa, Nagpur, 441106.
PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through its Secretary, Ministry of
3 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
Petroleum and Natural Gas Having
office At- GAIL Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji
Cama Place R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (For Gas Pipeline
Infrastructure Ltd.), (Formerly Known
as GAIL (India) Ltd.) Duly appointed
under section 2(a) of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipeline Acquisition Of
Right and user in Land) Act 1962,
Having office at- GAIL Bhawan, 3rd
Floor, Sector 15, Plot no-73, road no-3,
C.B.D.Belapur, New Mumbai-400614.
3. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (For Gas Pipeline
Infrastructure Ltd.), (Formerly Known
as GAIL (India) Ltd.) Duly appointed
under section 2(a) of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipeline Acquisition Of
Right and user in Land) 1962, Having
office at-100, Rana House, 3rd floor,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-440010.
4. Gas Pipeline Infrastructure
Limited (Formerly Known as GAIL
(INDIA) Ltd) Through Chairman and
Director,
R/O-GAIL Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji Cama
Place R K Puram, New Delhi-110066. RESPONDENTS
WITH
4 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
WRIT PETITION NO. 2504 OF 2024
1. Dipak S/o Vasantraoji Choudhari
Age-32 Yrs. Occu- Farmer
R/o- Nawargaon, po rewral in mouda,
Nawargaon 441401.
[Mouza- Nawargaon Nagpur, Survey
No-248/2/A/1]
2. Shravan S/o Doma Menghre
Age-74yrs, Occu- Farmer
R/o- Ward No.1 Nawargaon rewral
441401.
[Mouza- Nawargaon Nagpur Survey
No-111, 114, 109]
3. Gangadhar S/o Lahanu Gawande
Age-53 Yrs, Ocuu- Farming
R/o- Nawargaon Nagpur - 441401
[Mouza- Nawargaon, Survey
No-157/2]
4. Manoj S/o Vasantrao Choudhari
Age-29 yrs, Occu- Farming
R/o- Nawargaon, Nagpur-441401.
[Mouza-Nawargaon, Survey No -
248/2/B/1]
5. Dinesh S/o Gajanand Hiwse
Age-39 yrs, Occu- Farming
R/o- Nawargaon Rewral
Nagpur-441401.
[Mouza-Nawargaon, Survey No-164]
6. Vikash S/o Madhavrao Choudhari
Age-34 Yrs, Occu-Farming
R/o- plot no. 90 Nawargaon rewral
5 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
Nagpur-441401.
[Mouza- Nawargaon, Survey
No-134/2]
7. Pramila W/o Madhaorao Chaudhari
Age-58 Yrs., Occu- Farmer,
R/o-Nawargaon Nagpur-441401.
[Mouza- Nawargaon, Survey
No-134/3].
8. Sankapal S/o Istaru Manapure
Age-49 Yrs, Occu-farming
R/O - Kharbi post - Khapa
Bhandara 441912
[Mouza-kharbi, Survey No.-615]
9. Bhagrata Aanandrao Manapure
Age-75 Yrs, Occu- Farmer
R/O- Nehru Ward kharbi,
Bhandara -441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No.610]
10. Rajendra S/o Ramdas Gade
Age-71 Yrs., Occu-Farmer,
R/o- Moregaon Nagpur-441106.
[Mouza- Moregaon, Survey No
-194,183]
11. Dewchand S/o Ramdasji Gabhane
Age-71 Yrs., Occu-Farmer,
R/o- Tanda Moregaon Nagpur-441106.
[Mouza-Tanda, Survey No.-66]
12. Aanandrao S/o Chindhu Bante
Age-72 Yrs, Occu-Farmer
R/o- Pimpalgaon, morgaon
Nagpur -441106 [Mouza-pimpalgaon,
Survey No - 166, 190] PETITIONERS
6 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas Having
office At-GAIL Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji
Cama Place R.K.Puram, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (For Gas Pipeline
Infrastructure Ltd.), (Formerly Known
as GAIL (India) Ltd.) Duly appointed
under section 2(a) of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipeline Acquisition Of
Right and user in Land) Act 1962,
Having office at- GAIL Bhawan, 3rd
Floor, Sector 15, Plot no-73, road no-3,
C.B.D.Belapur, New Mumbai-400614.
3. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (For Gas Pipeline
Infrastructure Ltd.), (Formerly Known
as GAIL (India) Ltd.) Duly appointed
under section 2(a) of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipeline Acquisition Of
Right and user in Land) 1962, Having
office at-100, Rana House, 3rd floor,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-440010.
4. Gas pipeline infrastructure
limited (President)
(Formerly Known as GAIL (INDIA)
Ltd)
R/o-GAIL Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji cama
place R K Puram, New Delhi-110066.
7 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
5. District Collector Bhandara,
R/o-Collector office, Raipur Hwy,
MSEB Colony, Bhandara -441904.
6. Tahsildar Tumsar Tahsil office,
Rajendra Nagar, Tumsar -441912.
7. District Collector Nagpur,
R/o Ravindranath Tagore Marg, Civil
Lines, Nagpur -440001.
8. S.D.O. Nagpur City VCA Stadium
Complex, 129, Ravindranath Tagore
Marg Civil lines, Nagpur -440001. RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1419 OF 2024
1. Vijay Shyamrao Singanjude
Age-63 Yrs. Occu- Retire
R/O- 148, Madha colony, khat Road,
Bhandara-441904.
[Mouza- Kharbi, Survey No- 637/1]
2. Dilip Umrao Belurkar
Age-55 yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No-586/1]
3. Aasaram Bhiva Singajude
Age- 76 Yrs, Ocuu- Farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No-637/3]
8 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
4. Sitaram Tukaram Sindapure
Age-74 yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Panjara (Devhadi), Survey
No-159]
5. Moreshwar Ramprasad Singanjude
Age- 48 yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Kharbi, Survey No- 637/2]
6. Kamlesh Jaydeo Gabhane
Age-32 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No-587]
7. Rajaram Sitaram Giripunje
Age-49 Yrs, Occu-farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Kharbi, Survey No.-47]
8. Girdhari Ramprasad Singajude
Age-52 Yrs., Occu- Farming,
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No-587]
9. Umrao Bhiwaji Singanjude
Age-72 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No-637/4]
9 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
10. Namdeo Sadashiv Gomase
Age- 65 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No-587/2]
11. Radheshyam Gawatu Giripunje
Age-48 yrs, occu- Retired
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No-265]
12. Ravishankar Harichandra Giripunje
Age- 64 yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Kharbi post, Khapa,
Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Kharbi, Survey No-36 and
402]
13. Sunanda Ramshankar Bhelve
Age- 56 yrs, occ- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Kharbi, Survey No-398]
14. Ramshankar Govinda Bhelave
Age-61 Yrs, Occu-Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Tudaka, Survey No- 94]
15. Govardhan Chitaman Manapure
Age-86 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Tudaka, Survey No-131 & 135]
10 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
16. Nandram Nagoji Bhivgade
Age- 54 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Tudaka, Survey No- 41]
17. Mangesh Niranjan Waghmare
Age- 35 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Tudaka, Survey No- 200/1/2]
18. Laxmikant Jaychand Manapure
Age-40 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Tudaka, Survey No- 237 and
238]
19. Harichand Maroti Bangalkar
Age- 69 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Tudaka, Survey No- 225/1/1
and 225/2/1]
20. Shyamkumar Karu Deshmukh
Age- 61 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Tudaka, Survey No-226]
21. Harishchandra Bhayyalal Sakure
Age-58 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912 [Mouza-
Tudaka, Survey No- 44 and 46]
11 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
22. Rambhau Yadorao Deshmukh
Age-58 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Tudaka, Survey No- 67/2]
23. Raju Govindrao Deshmukh
Age- 54 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Tudaka, Survey No- 140 and
295]
24. Dilip Harichand Waghmare
Age- 46 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Tudaka, Survey No- 239 and
292]
25. Parmeshwar Vasudeo Deshmukh
Age- 52 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza- Tudaka, Survey No- 139 and
227]
26. Narayan Gungaji Deshmukh
Age- 76 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Tudaka, Survey No- 55/1]
27. Maniklal Kavalu Deshmukh
Age- 65 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Tudaka, Survey No- 55/2]
12 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
28. Tilak Gopaldev Mahajan
Age-59 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1. At Post- Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza-Mangsa, Survey no-218]
29. Ramesh Nago Bagde
Age- 62 yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-3. At Post- Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza-Mangsa, Survey no-242]
30. Shubham Hemraj Rahate
Age- 26 yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, At Post- Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no.61]
31. Hiralal Shyamrao Dhamde
Age-73 yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, At Post- Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no.61]
32. Satish Gendlal Mahajan
Age- 30 yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-3, At Post-Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza-Mangsa, Survey no-217]
33. Daryadeo Nishchaldeo Bhute
Age- 79 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Parsodi, Dis- Nagpur- 441107
[Mouza- Aashti(Bud), Survey no-56]
34. Shobhabai Daryadeo Bhute
Age- 70 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Parsodi, Dis- Nagpur- 441107
13 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
[Mouza- Aashti(Bud), Survey no-57]
35. Vinod Shripat Mahajan
Age- 56 yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-3, At Post- Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no-257
/258/2]
36. Sunil Balaji Tagade
Age- 52 Yrs, Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-3. At Post-Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza-Mangsa, Survey no-256]
37. Lalita Champat Mahajan
Age-53 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-3, At Post-Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no-147/3]
38. Champat Kisan Mahajan
Age-62 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-3, At Post- Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no-259]
39. Surajlal Balakdoji Bhute
Age- 56 Yrs., Occu- Service
R/O-44, rathi Layout, Zingabai takli,
Mankapur, Nagpur - 440030
[Mouza- Aashti(Bud) Survey No- 55]
40. Tejram Panjab Rahate
Age-49 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, At Post-Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis-Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no-115]
14 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
41. Sanjay Ram Dhamde
Age-49 yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, At Post-Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no.-59]
42. Ramesh Hiramandeo Tagde
Age-68 Yrs., occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, At Post-Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no.-33]
43. Vijaya Ramesh Tagde
Age- 60 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, At Post- Mangasa,
Tal- Saoner, Dis- Nagpur-441112
[Mouza- Mangsa, Survey no-32/B]
44. Suresh Muniraj Ghate
Age-53 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, Parsodi (wakil),
Kalmeshwar, Dis- Nagpur-441502
[Mouza- Parsodi (wakil), Survey No-
504]
45. Meghraj Muniraj Ghate
Age- 52 Yrs., Occu-Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, Parsodi (wakil),
Kalmeshwar, Dis- Nagpur-441502
[Mouza- Parsodi (wakil), Survey
No-313]
46. Asmit Prakash Dhunde
Age-28 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, Parsodi (wakil),
Kalmeshwar, Dis- Nagpur-441502
[Mouza- Parsodi (wakil), Survey No-
32/3]
15 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
47. Sanjay Bapurao Dhunde
Age-47 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, Parsodi (wakil),
Kalmeshwar, Dis- Nagpur-441502
[Mouza- Parsodi (wakil), Survey
No-32/5]
48. Vinod Bapurao Dhunde
Age- 36 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, Parsodi (wakil),
Kalmeshwar, Dis- Nagpur-441502
[Mouza- Parsodi (wakil), Survey
No-488 and 32/1]
49. Bhagwan Natthuji Chorghade
Age- 71 Yrs., Occu- Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, Parsodi (wakil),
Kalmeshwar, Dis- Nagpur-441502
[Mouza- Parsodi (wakil), Survey
No-33]
50. Suresh Hari Babde
Age-62 Yrs, Occu-Farming
R/O- Ward no-1, Parsodi (wakil),
Kalmeshwar, Dis- Nagpur-441502
[Mouza- Parsodi (wakil), Survey No-
400/3]
51. Ramesh Doma Kamale
Age-60 Yrs., Occu-Farming
R/O -At Mangasa, Tal. Saoner - 441112
[Mouza-Mangasa, Survey No- 121 &
122)
52. Heera Bapurao Dhunde
Age- 70 Yrs., Occu- Farming,
R/O- Ward no-1, Parsodi (wakil),
Kalmeshwar, Dis- Nagpur-02
16 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
[Mouza- Parsodi (wakil), Survey No-
32/2]
53. Radhika Mitaram Moharkar
Age-73 Yrs., Occu- Farming,
R/O- Devhadi Tudka, Khapa,
Dis- Bhandara-441912
[Mouza-Tudaka, Survey No- 199/2]
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas Having
office At- GAIL Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji
Cama Place R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (For Gas Pipeline
Infrastructure Ltd.), (Formerly Known
as GAIL (India) Ltd.) Duly appointed
under section 2(a) of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipeline Acquisition Of
Right and user in Land) Act 1962,
Having office at- GAIL Bhawan, 3rd
Floor, Sector 15, Plot no-73, road no-3,
C.B.D. Belapur, New Mumbai-400614.
3. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (For Gas Pipeline
Infrastructure Ltd.), (Formerly Known
as GAIL (India) Ltd.) Duly appointed
under section 2(a) of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipeline Acquisition Of
Right and user in Land) Act 1962,
Having office at-100, Rana House, 3rd
floor, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-440010.
17 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
4. Gas Pipeline Infrastructure
Limited (Formerly Known as GAIL
(INDIA) Ltd)
R/O- GAIL Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji Cama
Place R K Puram, New Delhi -110066.
5. District Collector Bhandara
R/O - Mr. Yogesh Kumbhejkar
Collector office, Raipur Hwy, MSEB
Colony, Bhandara-441904.
6. Tahsildar Tumsar
R/O - Tahsil Office, Rajendra nagar,
Tumsar-441912
7. District Collector Nagpur
R/O- Ravindranath Tagore Marg, Civil
Lines, Nagpur-440001.
8. Tahsildar Saoner
R/O - Tahsil Office, Chindwada road,
Saoner- 441107
9. Tahsildar Kalmeshwar
R/O- Tahsil Office, Kalmeshwar-
441501
10. S.D.O. Nagpur City
R/O- VCA Stadium Complex, 129,
Ravindranath Tagore marg Civil
Lines, Nagpur-440001
11. S.D.O. Tumsar
R/O- S.D.O. office, Tumsar-441912. RESPONDENTS
WITH
18 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
WRIT PETITION NO. 761 OF 2024
1. Asha Anil Khandagale
Age- 65 Yrs., Occ-Agricultural
R/o Sawali, Tah. Kalmeshwar,
Nagpur, 441106
2. Dilip Filchand Meshram
Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 441106.
3. Bakubai Pandurang Hatwar
Age: 78 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa,
Mangli (Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 441106.
4. Shivshankar Pandurang Hatwar
Age: 41years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 441106.
5. Moreshwar Pandurang Hatwar
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 441106.
6. Namdeo Kashinath Hatwar
Age: 63 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 441106
7. Damodar Vatuji Hatwar
Age: 72 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 441106
8. Pandurang Motiram Kawde
Age: 70 years, Occu: Agriculture,
19 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 06.
9. Kailas Baburao Dhande
Age: 35 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 06.
10. Vilas Baburaoji Dhande
Age: 41 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 06.
11. Deorao Bhagwanji Thosre
Age: 58 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Mu. Mangli Gosai, Post. Tarsa, Mangli
(Gosai) Tarsa, Nagpur 06.
12. Khushal Baburaoji Dube
Age: 60 years, Occu: Agriculture,
Near Gajanan Maharaj Mandir,
Ward No.5, Laxmi Nagar,
At Post. Mauda, Nagpur 441104.
13. Hemraj Bapurao Kakde
Age: 71 years, Occu: Farming
R/o. House no.690, Ward no. 2,
Mondha, Hingna, Nagpur, 441110.
14. Ramdas Bapurao Kakde
Age: 71 years, Occ: Farming
R/o. House no.690, Ward no. 2,
Mondha, Hingna, Nagpur, 10.
15. Tukaram Keshav Kakde
Age: 69 years, Occu: Farming
R/o. VTC, Mondha, Hingna,
Nagpur, 10.
20 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
16. Ramesh Keshav Kakde
Age: 69 years, Occu: Farming
R/o. Hingna, Mondha, Hingna,
Nagpur, 10.
17. Yashwant Bhaurao Kakde
Age: 49 years, Occu: Farming
R/o. Plot no. 270, Ward No. 2, Near
Govt. Hospital, Mondha, Hingna,
Nagpur, 441110.
18. Manoj Bhaurao Kakde
Age: 44 years, Occu: Farming
R/o. Hingna, Mondha, Hingna,
Nagpur.
19. Nanda Anil Mankar
Age: 46 years, Occ. Farming,
R/o. Neri Mankar Hingna,
Vyahad Bizk, Nagpur. 023.
20. Mirabai Bhaurao Kakde
Age: 71 years, Occ Farming,
R/o. Hingna, Mondha,
Hingna, Nagpur.
21. Sulochana Chandan Naik
Age: 49 years, Occ: Farming,
R/o. Ward no. 2, Nilgaon,
Nilgaon (Boargaon), Near Gram
Panchayat, Kalmeshwar, Nagpur-07.
22. Roshan Chandan Naik
Age: 28 years, Occ Farming,
R/o. Ward no. 2, Nilgaon, Nilgaon
(Boargaon), Near Gram panchayat,
Kalmeshwar, Nagpur- 07.
21 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
23. Akash Chandan Naik
Age: 31 years, Occu: Farming,
R/o. Ward no. 2, Nilgaon, Nilgaon
(Boargaon), Near Gram hayat,
Kalmeshwar, Nagpur- 07.
24. Priyanka Tushar Nagdive
Age: 30 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Budhavihar Lumbini Nagar,
Bezanbag Nagpur- 07.
25. Alka Ashok Khade
Age: 52 yrs., Occ. Farming,
R/o. 38/1, Ward no. 3, Near Nagoba
Mandir, Juna Nanda, Nagpur.
26. Vikas Ashok Khade
Age: 26 yrs., Occu. Farming,
R/o. 38/1, Ward no. 3, Near Nagoba
Mandir, Juna Nanda, Nanda, Nagpur.
27. Akash Ashok Khade
Age: 28 yrs., Occu. Farming,
R/o. 38/1, Ward no. 3, Near Nagoba
Mandir, Juna Nanda, Nanda. PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Union Of India
Through its Secretary, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Gas Having
office At-GAIL Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji
Cama Place R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (For Gas Pipeline
22 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
Infrastructure Ltd.), (Formerly Known
as GAIL (India) Ltd.) Duly appointed
under section 2(a) of the Petroleum
and Minerals Pipeline Acquisition Of
Right and user in Land) Act 1962,
Having office at- GAIL Bhawan, 3rd
Floor, Sector 15, Plot no-73, road no-3,
C.B.D. Belapur, New Mumbai-400614.
3. Deputy Collector and Competent
Authority, (For Pipeline Infrastructure
Ltd.), (Formerly Known as GAIL
(India) Ltd.) Duly appointed under
section 2(a) of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipeline Acquisition Of Right
and user in Land) Act 1962, Having
office at-100, Rana House, 3rd floor,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-440010.
4. Gas Pipeline Infrastructure
Limited (Formerly Known as GAIL
(INDIA) Ltd) Through Chairman and
Managing Director,
R/O-GAIL Bhawan, 16, Bhikaji Cama
Place R K Puram, New Delhi-110066. RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. T.R.S. Kumar, Advocate a/b Mrs. S.V. Taksande, Advocate for the
Petitioners in WP Nos.404/2024 & 761/2024.
Mr. V.K. Belekar, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP No.2504/2024.
Mrs. P.A. Mahashabde, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP No.1419/2024
and for Intervenor in WP No.404/2024.
Mr. N.S. Deshpande, DSGI for the Respondent/Union of India.
Mr. Atul Pande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl.GP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. P.R. Puri, Advocate for the Intervenor in WP No.404/2024.
-----------------------------------------------
23 WP.404-2024 - Judgment.odt
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
Date of reserving the Judgment : 13th MARCH, 2025
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 1st APRIL, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally,
with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the rival
parties.
3. The Petition challenges the constitutional validity of
Section 10(4) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter
referred to as the “PMP Act 1962” for short) on the ground that
it is arbitrary, oppressive, unjust, unfair and also amounts to
violation of the rights of the citizens such as the Petitioners, to
hold the property in terms of Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India.
24 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
4. Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in
Writ Petition No.404/2024, submits that coming into force of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as the “RFCTLARR Act” for short) was a
revolutionary action on the part of the Union, in combining all
the provisions regarding compensation, rehabilitation and
resettlement, which were not existing earlier in point of time,
and relating them to the market value of the land. He further
submits, that though the State may acquire land, the same has
to be for just and fair compensation and it is only if it is held,
that the RFCTLARR Act, is applicable to the vesting under the
PMP Act 1962, then such a result could be obtained, in which
circumstances, the owner would get just and fair compensation
in terms of the RFCTLARR Act.
4.1. He compares Section 6(2) of the PMP Act 1962 with
that of Section 3-D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as the “NH Act 1956″ for short), to
contend that they are pari materia, in view of which, the
provisions of the NH Act 1956 will have to be held to be
25 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
applicable to the acquisition under the PMP Act 1962.
4.2. He further contends, that under the PMP Act 1962
an area, of nearly 20 meters on either side of the pipeline which
is at a depth of 2 to 4 meters at places, stands unusable and
unavailable, to the landowner, which in fact, would be a species
of vesting of the land as contemplated by the RFCTLARR Act, on
account of which, the provisions thereunder for the purpose of
grant of compensation would become applicable.
4.3. He further submits, that on account of the
applicability of the doctrine of eminent domain, the landowners
having title over the property, cannot be deprived of the same,
without just and fair compensation being paid, which would
equally apply, for being deprived even to the right to use the
land as contemplated by the provisions of the PMP Act of 1962
and the compensation of 10% of the market value, cannot be
said to be just and fair for such deprivation.
4.4. He further invites our attention to para 22 and 23 of
the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RFCTLARR Act, to
26 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
contend, that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation, to
the provisions of the other statutes relating to acquisition. In
fact, it is his contention, that the entire law regarding
acquisition including those contained in 13 Acts, which are
indicated in Fourth Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, has been
merged into the RFCTLARR Act by providing acquisition,
compensation and rehabilitation in respect to the lands also
acquired under these Statues.
4.5. He further submits, that the ready reckoner value is
not a market value, for at times transactions are at even higher
rate and may be at times, the correct value is not reflected in
the transactions, and therefore, on this count the cut-off limit of
10% is unreasonable and unjust, as there is no basis for the
same.
4.6. He further submits, that for all agricultural
purposes, a landowner is deprived of the ownership of the land
inasmuch as consequent to the vesting of the right of the user in
the Authority he cannot make any construction or plant any
trees or for that matter take any crop, over a distance, to the
27 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
length of the pipeline passing through the fields of the owner
and across the distance of 20 meters in totality, which results in
deprivation of the right to his property on account of the
pipeline which is akin to vesting of the land under the
RFCTLARR Act and also similar vesting as contemplated by
Section 3-D(2) of the NH Act of 1956.
4.7. He therefore submits, that the provisions of Section
10(4) of the PMP Act of 1962, inasmuch as they put a
restriction of 10% of the market value, for the purpose of
compensation as the outer limit, for the acquisition of the land
are clearly unsustainable, considering the law which is
applicable and the intention of the legislature in providing the
just and fair compensation to a person who is deprived of the
user of the property on account of its acquisition under the PMP
Act of 1962.
4.8. He further relies upon the notification dated
28.08.2015 issued under Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act
(page 91), whereby the proviso of the said Act have been made
applicable to the enactments listed under the Fourth Schedule
28 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
of the RFCTLARR Act and submits, that the Petitioners are
therefore, entitled for grant of compensation in terms of
mandate of the RFCTLARR Act.
4.9. He also relies upon the following judgments in
support of his contention:
Sr.No. JUDGMENTS CITATIONS 1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. (1973) 4 SCC 225 2. Y.A. Mamarde & Ors. v. Authority under (1972) 2 SCC 108 the Minimum Wages Act (Small Causes Court) Nagpur and Ors. 3. Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-Operative (1999) 6 SCC 82 Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Ors. 4. Angrej Kaur v. Union of India (UOI) and (2005) 4 SCC 446 Ors. 5. Kailash Chand and Ors. v. Dharam Das (2005) 5 SCC 375
6. Madhu Kishwar and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1996) 5 SCC 125
and Ors.,
7. Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and (2014) 1 SCC 188
Ors.
8. Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya (1993) Supp 1 SCC 529
Pradesh, Jabalpur through Registrar.
9. Dev Sharan and Ors. v. State of Uttar (2011) 4 SCC 769
Pradesh and Ors.
10. Radhy Shyam v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 553
29 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
11. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of (1970) 3 SCR 530
India.
12. Aswin kumar Ghos & Ors. v. Arabinda AIR 1952 SC 369
Bose.
13. Indian Handicrafts Emporium & Ors. v. (2003) 7 SCC 589
Union of India.
14. Chairman Indore Vikas Prathikaran v. (2007) 8 SCC 705
Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd.
15. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors. vs. (2007) 6 SCC 59
Revamma and Ors.
16. Sooram Pratap Reddy v. District (2008) 9 SCC 552
Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
17. Amarjith Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2010) 10 SCC 43
& Ors.
18. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Tarsem (2019) 9 SCC 304
Singh and Ors.
5. Mrs. Taksande, learned Counsel appears for the
Petitioners in Writ Petition No.761/2024 and adopts the
arguments of Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in
Writ Petition No.404/2024.
6. Mrs. Mahashabde, learned Counsel appears for the
Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1419/2024 and adopts the
arguments of Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in
Writ Petition No.404/2024.
30 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
7. Mr. Belekar, learned Counsel appears for the
Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2504/2024 and adopts the
arguments of Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in
Writ Petition No.404/2024.
8. Mr. Atul Pande, learned Counsel for the Respondent
Nos. 2 to 4, invites our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya & Ors.
Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2016 (9) SCC 791 (page 131), in
which it is contended, that a similar challenge, has been
repelled. He further contends, that since the Petitioners are not
granted the quantum of compensation awarded under Section
10(4) of the PMP Act 1962, the remedy of filing the appeal
before the District Judge under Section 10(5) of the PMP Act
1962, is available to them.
9. Mr. Deshpande, learned DSGI for the Respondent
No.1/Union of India, submits that the purpose and intent of the
acquisition of the land under the NH Act 1956 and the PMP Act
1962 are two distinct and separate things, inasmuch as
according to him, there cannot be any comparison with the
31 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
provisions of Section 3-D(2) of the NH Act 1956 and Section
6(2) of the PMP Act 1962, as they operate in two distinct fields
and contemplate acquisition of rights differently, inasmuch as
under the provisions of Section 3-D(2) of the NH Act 1956,
what is acquired and vested is ‘land’ as compared to the
provisions of Section 6(2) of the PMP Act 1962, which does not
contemplate acquisition of land but the acquisition of a ‘right of
user’, which would be in a limited sense as compared to
acquisition of land. He therefore submits, that there cannot be
any comparison between two statutes. He further contends, that
the above two provisions are not pari materia, and therefore,
the plea raised in that regard, for the applicability of the
RFCTLARR Act cannot be sustained as both of them operate in
different fields altogether.
9.1. He further contends, that considering the nature of
vesting of the right of the user in terms of Section 6(2) of the
PMP Act 1962, the compensation of 10% of the market value, as
contemplated by Section 10(4) of the PMP Act 1962, is
reasonable and just, specifically so, in view of the fact, that the
owner is not deprived of the right to use the land in its totality
32 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
but only in respect of the restrictions, as contemplated by
Section 9 of the PMP Act 1962. He further submits, that the
land would be available for taking agricultural crops, which
would indicate, that there is no absolute deprivation of the user
of the land, to the land owner. He therefore submits, that the
award of compensation to the extent of 10% as contemplated by
Section 6(2) of the PMP Act 1962, is reasonable and fair.
9.2. It is also his contention, that Section 7(1)(i) proviso
(a) to (c) of the PMP Act 1962, lays down sufficient safeguards,
for an owner of land and assures that there is minimal damage
and in cases contemplated by Clauses (a) to (c), they would be
exempted from the action of laying down a pipeline.
9.3. He further submits that, Section 7(1)(i) proviso
Clause (d) of the PMP Act 1962 further ensures that there
would be no impediment in the agricultural cultivation of the
lands in question, in spite of the pipeline having been laid,
considering the minimum depth prescribed therein, below
which the pipeline has to be laid.
33 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
10. Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in
rebuttal, in relation to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra), submits that the
Constitutional validity, to Section 10(4) of the PMP Act of 1962
was never decided there as challenge to the same, was given up,
for which he invites our attention to para 11, 12 and 13 of the
said judgment. He therefore submits, that the challenge to the
validity of Section 10(4) of the PMP Act 1962, is still available
to the Petitioners to be raised in the present Petition.
11. Mr. Puri, learned Counsel has filed Civil Application
(CAW) No. 477/2024 in Writ Petition No.404/2024, seeking
intervention on behalf of the Applicants. We have already heard
the matter in extenso and it is now after the above position has
been recorded, that the application is being mentioned.
We consider, that since the claim of the Applicants
and that of the Petitioners are similar, no useful purpose would
be served by permitting the Applicants to join as the intervenors
at this stage when the matter is already heard. The application
is therefore rejected.
34 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
12. For the same reason Civil Application (CAW)
No.653/2024 in Writ Petition No.404/2024 stands rejected, as
Mrs. Mahashabde, learned Counsel for the Applicants, who is
also the Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition
No.1419/2024, has adopted the arguments of Mr. Kumar,
learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.
404/2024.
13. The first thing to be considered is whether the
challenge as raised herein is already decided by the hon’ble
Apex Court in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra). Though it
is contended by Mr. Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the question of validity to the provisions of the PMP Act,
though raised therein, was given up and therefore not decided
in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra) on account of which it
would be permissible for this Court to consider the challenge to
the validity of the provisions of the PMP Act, as laid in these
petitions, we however find that it is not so. In this regard, this is
what has been recorded in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya
(supra):
35 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
“13. These appeals at the instance of the owners/occupiers
challenge the correctness of the decision of the High Court.
RGTIL however accepted the judgment and did not prefer any
challenge. It may be mentioned that the very same
owners/occupiers had also filed Writ Petition No. 569 of 2009
in this Court challenging the vires of some of the provisions of
the PMP Act. However at the request of the petitioners, said
Writ Petition No. 569 of 2009 was allowed to be withdrawn
on 7-1-2010 [Laljibhai Kadavabhai Savaliya v. Reliance Gas
Transportation Infrastructure Ltd., WP (C) No. 569 of 2009,
order dated 7-1-2010 (SC), wherein it was directed: “WP (C)
No. 569 of 2009 The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
SLPs (C) Nos. 21751-80 of 2009, 21813-30 of 2009 and
22013 of 2009 Delay condoned. Issue notice. SLP (C) No. …
CC No. 21606 of 2009 to come up with the connected
matters.”] . While the aforesaid matters were pending, in
another batch of matters the question of bias of the
competent authority was put in issue. Those matters were
allowed by this Court by its decision in Trilok Sudhirbhai
Pandya v. Union of India [Trilok Sudhirbhai Pandya v. Union
of India, (2011) 10 SCC 203 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 120] . This
Court directed the Union of India to appoint another person
as competent authority for determination of compensation
but made it clear that the judgment therein would not affect
any orders with regard to acquisition of right of user.
14. On or about 5-11-2011, an application was filed on behalf
of the appellants herein praying that appropriate directions
be issued to the competent authority to decide the
compensation payable to the owners/occupiers under Section
9 as well as under Section 10 at the time of taking actual
36 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
possession. Thereafter, another application, namely, IA No. 5
of 2013 was filed seeking permission to raise additional
grounds. By raising these grounds, the appellants submitted
that the PMP Act and the Rules framed thereunder were
violative of the constitutional framework. This Court by its
order dated 10-2-2014 issued notices to the State of Gujarat
as well as to the learned Solicitor General of India in the
aforesaid IA No. 5 of 2013 and by subsequent order dated 2-
2-2016 the said application was allowed. The Union of India
and other respondents were permitted to file their affidavits
in reply and it was clarified that it would be permissible for
any other interested person(s) to join these proceedings.
Further, by order dated 18-3-2016 , this Court stayed further
proceedings before the competent authority.
15. Before we deal with the challenge raised in these appeals,
it must be noted that none of the landowners had challenged
the validity of Section 3(1) Notification issued in the instant
case nor any grievance was raised against the order passed by
the competent authority under Section 5(2) of the PMP Act.
Though a substantive writ petition challenging the vires of
some of the provisions of the PMP Act was filed, that petition
was also withdrawn, without seeking any liberty. Even then,
we have heard the submissions regarding validity of the PMP
Act. We have heard Mr Amar Dave, learned Advocate in
support of the appeals, Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor
General of India, Dr A.M. Singhvi and Mr Paras Kuhad,
learned Senior Advocates for RGTIL, Mr Harin P. Raval, learned
Senior Advocate for the competent authority, Mr Preetesh
Kapoor, learned Advocate for the State of Gujarat and Mr K.K.
Venugopal, learned Senior Advocate for the intervener,
namely, Gujarat State Petronet Ltd.”
37 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
It would thus be apparent that though Writ Petition
No.569 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Apex Court, challenging the
vires of some of the provisions of the PMP Act, was permitted to
be withdrawn on 07.01.2010, however IA No. 5 of 2013 was
filed seeking permission to raise additional grounds, whereby a
plea was raised that the PMP Act and the Rules framed
thereunder were violative of the Constitutional framework,
which IA was allowed by the order dated 02.02.2016,
consequent to which the judgment itself records that though a
substantive writ petition challenging the vires of some of the
provisions of the PMP Act was filed, that petition was also
withdrawn, without seeking any liberty, even then, the Hon’ble
Apex Court had heard the submissions regarding validity of the
PMP Act. In view of what has been stated in Laljibhai Kadvabhai
Savaliya (supra), it would be impermissible for us to hold that
the challenge to the Constitutional validity of the provisions of
the PMP Act was not considered and decided by the Hon’ble
Apex Court. This is more so, as Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya
(supra), in paras 16.1. to 16.7, encapsulates the grounds of
challenge as laid as follows:
38 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
“16.1. Though under the PMP Act right of user simpliciter in
respect of notified lands is acquired, for all practical purposes
the owners/occupiers stand deprived of their proprietary
interest and enjoyment of the lands in toto. According to Section
9 the user of the land stands frozen for all times to come and the
owners/occupiers would not be allowed to use or utilise the
land for any construction. The acquisition of right of user thus
amounts to complete deprivation.
16.2. The PMP Act is a legislation to bypass the due process of
law contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
entire exercise contemplated under the PMP Act is nothing but
acquisition of the entire interest of the owners/occupiers in
respect of such land. Reliance was placed on the decision of this
Court in H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra [H.D. Vora v. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 337] .
16.3. The PMP Act was enacted in 1962 when the activities like
production of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products as
well as transportation and distribution of petroleum and
petroleum products were exclusively in public sector. The then
industrial policy was relied upon in support of this submission.
Additionally, reliance was also placed on the Statement of
Objects and Reasons to submit that certain expressions like
“corporation” appearing in Section 2(b) ought to be construed
to confine to corporations in public sector and the PMP Act
ought not to be invoked in favour of a company in private
sector.
16.4. Certain provisions of the PMP Act were highlighted to
show that there was complete absence of requisite framework
leading to unfair treatment to the landowners.
16.5. The competent authority is to discharge important
39 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
functions like hearing of objections, making a report to the
Central Government and deciding the quantum of compensation
in the first instance. However unlike other pari materia
enactments no qualifications are prescribed for appointment of a
person as competent authority.
16.6. Upon publication of the declarations under Section 6(1),
the right of user in the lands stands vested free from all
encumbrances. The statutory scheme shows that after such
vesting, the compensation for the loss or injury suffered under
Sections 4, 7 and 8 and compensation under Section 10 is to be
determined. Neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate any
period within which compensation for such damage, loss or
injury and compensation for acquisition of right of user is to be
deposited or paid.
16.7. There are no guidelines in the PMP Act that the pipelines
should be laid in such a way so as to cause least amount of
damage or loss to the occupiers.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court thereafter has considered
the challenge based upon the above pleas and except to the
challenge to the appointment of the ‘Competent Authority’, on
account of absence of any stipulation in the PMP Act or the
Rules made thereunder as to the qualifications or the process of
appointment of the Competent Authority, which has been
accepted, has negatived all other challenges and has held as
under :
40 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
“33. We thus do not find the provisions regarding computation
of compensation with regard to both elements under Section 10
of the PMP Act to be invalid on any count. We further find that
the definition “corporation” is wide enough to take within its
sweep entities in private sector as well. We also do not find the
provisions of the PMP Act to be lacking on any count, except to
the extent indicated above as regards appointment of competent
authority. Civil appeals are thus disposed of without any order
as to costs.”
It would therefore be incorrect to say that the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra) did
not determine the Constitutional validity of the PMP Act, as that
is exactly what it did.
The nature of challenges to the Constitutional
validity of the PMP Act, in the instant matter, as raised by
Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has already been
recorded above.
In Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra) regarding
the nature of the rights acquired, this is what has been held:
“18. Under the provisions of the PMP Act, what is taken over or
acquired is the right of user to lay and maintain pipelines in the
41 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odtsubsoil of the land in question. The provisions of the PMP Act
get attracted upon the requisite notification having been made
under Section 3. If it appears to the Central Government that it
is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of
petroleum or any minerals any pipeline be made and for the
purposes of laying such pipelines it is necessary to acquire the
right of user in any land, it may by notification issued in exercise
of power under Section 3 declare its intention to acquire such
right of user. The Act then provides for making of objections by
those interested in land, which objections are thereafter to be
dealt with by the competent authority. The report made by the
competent authority is then placed before the Central
Government for appropriate decision and after considering such
report and the relevant material on record, if the Central
Government is satisfied that such land is required for laying any
pipeline for the transport of petroleum or any other mineral, it
may declare by notification in the Official Gazette that the right
of user in the land for laying the pipeline be acquired. Upon the
publication of such declaration under Section 6 the right of user
in the land so specified vests absolutely in the Central
Government or in the State Government or in the corporation
free from all encumbrances. Thus what stands acquired is the
right of user in the land in question for laying pipeline for the
transport of petroleum or any mineral and not the land itself.
19. The Statement of Objects and Reasons throws light on this
facet of the matter and shows that although the land could be
acquired outright for laying such pipelines under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, such procedure for acquisition would be
costly. For instance, as the facts of the present case disclose the
pipeline from Kakinada to Jamnagar would be over 1470 km in
length. If the lands were to be acquired outright, it would lead
42 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odtto tremendous increase in costs finally reflecting in escalation of
the costs of petroleum or minerals. At the same time, if at every
stage outright acquisition is to be insisted upon, many
agriculturists would stand deprived of their holdings causing
great prejudice. The Act is thus designed to achieve the purpose
of laying of the pipelines for petroleum and minerals as
“efficient and cheap means of transportation and distribution of
petroleum and petroleum products”.
20. At the same time Section 18 specifically lays down that the
provisions of the PMP Act shall be in addition and not in
derogation to any other law for the time being in force relating
to acquisition of land. Thus in a given case where the
circumstances and the occasions so demand, a resort could still
be taken to acquire the lands by relying upon the general law of
acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. For instance, for monitoring the pressure gauges or in
cases where pipelines are branching in different directions,
implementations to regulate the flow may require permanent
establishments necessitating acquisition of the land itself rather
than acquisition of a mere right of user. The PMP Act is thus a
special enactment designed to achieve the purpose of laying
pipelines as efficient means of transportation and with this idea
it is only the right of user in the land to lay such pipelines is
acquired.
21. Section 7 stipulates that no pipeline be laid under any land
which, immediately before the date of notification under Section
3(1) was used for residential purposes, or any land on which
there is permanent structure in existence or any land which is
appurtenant to a dwelling house. It is clear that only such lands
are to be considered for acquisition of right of user therein
which are either lying fallow or are being put to agricultural
43 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
use. It is obvious that care is taken to cause least possible
damage to the holdings of the landowners concerned. According
to Section 9, after the pipelines are laid, the owner/occupier
could use the land for the purpose for which it was being used
before the notification under Section 3(1) was issued. Section 9
certainly imposes some restrictions in the sense that such
owner/occupier cannot thereafter construct any building or any
other structure or construct or excavate any lake, reservoir or
dam or plant any tree on such land. Barring such restrictions,
the owner/occupier is within his rights to use the land for the
same purpose for which the land was earlier being used. The
point is clear that neither the ownership in respect of the land
itself nor the right to occupy or possess that land is taken over
permanently and those rights continue to remain with the
owner/occupier. What is taken over is only the right of user,
namely, to lay pipelines in the subsoil of the land in question
and the restrictions imposed by Section 9 are designed to
safeguard and secure the pipelines underneath.”
In Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra) regarding
the nature of the inadequacy of compensation under the PMP
Act, this is what has been held :
“23. We therefore proceed on the premise that the right of user
sought to be taken over under the provisions of the PMP Act
amounts to acquisition of one of the facets of property rights
which inhere in the owner/occupier. For the acquisition of such
right of user, the compensation is prescribed in terms of Section
10 of the PMP Act. There are two elements of compensation
under Section 10. The first part deals with any damage, loss or
44 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
injury sustained by any owner/occupier as a result of exercise of
powers conferred by Sections 4, 7 and 8 of the PMP Act that is
to say the actual damage, loss or injury sustained because of
entry upon and/or digging or marking levels and survey of land
under Section 4 or while actual laying of the pipeline including
digging of trenches and carrying of requisite material for such
operations under Section 7 or at any stage of maintenance,
examinations, repairing and altering or removing of pipeline in
terms of Section 8 of the PMP Act. The measure for determining
such compensation is given with sufficient clarity in sub-section
(3) of Section 10. The idea is to compensate the owner/occupier
for actual damage, loss or injury sustained by him as a result of
the operations carried out in terms of Section 4, Section 7 or
Section 8 of the Act. One of the indicia under sub-section (3)
could be “any injury to any other property whether movable or
immovable, or the earnings of such persons in any other
manner”. All possible acts as a result of which the damage, loss
or injury could be so occasioned are taken care of and stipulated
in the said sub-section. Over and above such compensation for
actual damage, loss or injury, additional compensation @ 10%
of the market value of the land is given to the owner/occupier
under sub-section (4) of Section 10 for taking over the right of
user to lay the pipelines. This element of additional
compensation is independent of any actual loss or damage and
is purely linked to the value of the land for the purposes of
computation. This element of compensation is purely for
acquisition of right of user simpliciter. The damage/loss or
injury to the property is separately dealt with under first part of
Section 10 and has to be compensated in toto. Theoretically, it is
possible that in a barren piece of land as a result of exercise of
powers under Sections 4, 6 and 7 there may not be any
damage/loss or injury. However compensation under sub-section
45 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
(4) for acquisition of right of user would still be independently
payable. The expression “in addition to the compensation, if any,
payable under sub-section (1)” clearly shows the intent that the
compensation for acquisition of right of user shall be in addition
to the actual damage/loss or injury under first part of Section
10. This part will also be clear from Para 3(iii) of the Statement
of Objects and Reasons extracted above (in para 2).
24. The provisions of the PMP Act do specify the principles and
the manner in which the compensation is to be determined. Not
only the actual damage, loss or injury suffered as a result of
exercise of various activities in terms of Sections 4, 6 and 7 are
compensated in toto but additionally compensation linked to the
market value of land is also to be given for acquisition of right of
user in respect of such land. What is taken over is mere right of
user to lay the pipeline in the subsoil of land in question, leaving
the title to the land as well as the right to possess that land
intact in the hands of the landowner/occupier. It is no doubt
that the enjoyment thereof after the pipelines are laid is
impaired to a certain extent, in that the owner/occupier cannot
raise any permanent construction or cause any excavation or
plant any trees. Barring such restrictions, the enjoyment and the
right of possession remains unaltered. The lands under which
the pipeline would be laid are primarily, going by the mandate
of Section 7, agricultural or fallow and there would normally be
no occasion for any rendering of the holding completely unfit
for any operations. Even in such cases where the holding is
rendered unfit, sub-section (3)(iii) of Section 10 could be relied
upon and any diminution in market value as permanent
impairment could sustain a claim for compensation. The
principles of compensation as detailed in the PMP Act are thus
reasonable and cannot in any way be termed as illusory. The
46 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
principle laid down in H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra [H.D.
Vora v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 337] has no
application at all.”
It would thus be apparent that the pleas regarding
the nature of the right acquired, land being rendered unusable,
adequacy of compensation under Section 10 of the PMP Act, all
have been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laljibhai
Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra) and cannot be permitted to be
re-agitated again.
14. That takes us to the plea that the provisions of
Section 6(2) of the PMP Act and Section 3-D-(2) of the NH Act
are pari materia and therefore the provisions of the NH Act,
could be said to be applicable to the acquisition under the PMP
Act. We are afraid we are unable to subscribe to this view. For
this one merely has to look at the two provisions in
contradistinction to each other, which can be demonstrated as
under :
PMP Act N H Act.
6. Declaration of acquisition of right 3A. Power to acquire land, etc.–
of user.–
47 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
(1) Where no objections under sub- (1) Where the Central
section (1) of section 5 have been Government is satisfied that for a
made to the competent authority public purpose any land is
within the period specified therein required for the building,
or where the competent authority maintenance, management or
has disallowed the objections under operation of a national highway
sub-section (2) of that section, that or part thereof, it may, by
authority shall, as soon as may be notification in the Official
either make a report in respect of Gazette, declare its intention to
the land described in the acquire such land
notification under sub-section (1) of (2) —–
section 3, or make different reports (3) —–
in respect of different parcels of
such land, to the Central 3D. Declaration of acquisition.–
Government containing his (1) Where no objection under
recommendations on the objections, sub-section (1) of section 3C has
together with the record of the been made to the competent
proceedings held by him, for the authority within the period
decision of that Government] and specified therein or where the
upon receipt of such report the competent authority has
Central Government shall, if disallowed the objection under
satisfied that such land is required sub-section (2) of that section,
for laying any pipeline for the the competent authority shall, as
transport of petroleum or any soon as may be, submit a report
mineral, declare, by notification in accordingly to the Central
the Official Gazette, that the right Government and on receipt of
of user in the land for laying the such report, the Central
pipelines should be acquired and Government shall declare, by
different declarations may be made notification in the Official
from time to time in respect of Gazette, that the land should be
different parcels of the land acquired for the purpose or
described in the notification issued purposes mentioned in sub-
under sub-section (1) of section 3, section (1) of section 3A.
irrespective of whether one report
or different reports have been made
by the competent authority under
this section.
(2) On the publication of the
declaration under sub-section (1), (2) On the publication of the
the right of user in the land declaration under sub-section (1),
specified therein shall vest the land shall vest absolutely in
absolutely in the Central the Central Government free from
Government free from all all encumbrances.
encumbrances
48 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
A bare comparison of the above provisions would
demonstrate that what is provided to be acquired and vest, in
the Central Government on such acquisition under the NH Act,
is ‘land’, as defined in Section 3(b) of the NH Act, whereas what
is acquired and vests, under Section 6 (2) of the PMP Act, is not
‘land’ but only the limited ‘right to user’, which is for the
purpose of laying the pipeline underneath it. Thus, there is a
marked difference between the two provisions referred to
above, as Section 3-D-2 of the NH Act, contemplates the
acquisition of ‘Land’, as against which Section 6(2) of the PMP
Act contemplates merely a ‘user of the land’, on account of
which the contention that they being pari materia, cannot be
accepted.
15. That takes us to the plea that under the PMP Act
1962 since an area, of nearly 20 meters on either side of the
pipeline which is at a depth of 2 to 4 meters at places, stands
unusable and unavailable, to the landowner, which in fact,
would be a species of vesting of the land as contemplated by the
RFCTLARR Act, on account of which, the provisions thereunder
49 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
for the purpose of grant of compensation would become
applicable. In this context, the same reasoning which has been
enumerated above in respect of the acquisition under the NH
Act, would be applicable as the RFCTLARR Act also
contemplates the acquisition of ‘land’, and not any limited ‘right
of user’, in land, as is the position under the PMP Act. That
apart the plea of the land above the pipeline being rendered
unsuable, has been considered and rejected in Laljibhai
Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra), on account of which the plea in this
regard also therefore cannot be accepted.
16. That takes us further to the consideration of the plea
regarding the Notification dated 28.08.2015 (page 91) issued
by the Union of India in exercise of the powers under Section
113 of the RFCTLARR Act. In our considered opinion, the
position in this regard, already stands considered by the learned
Division Bench of this Court in Gangadhar Karbhari Jadhav V.
Union of India and others, AIR Online 2023 BOM 404 , in which
after considering Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and another v.
Mathias Oram and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1508, this is
what has been held:
50 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
“72. In our view, the impugned order and notification
under Section 113 of the Fair Compensation Act are
issued not to give effect to any difficulty arising in
giving effect to the provisions of the Act but is issued
to cover up the lapses made by the Government by
not issuing notification under Section 105(3) within
the time prescribed under Section 105(3) which is not
permissible. For such lapses or for curing the difficulty
in following mandatory procedure cannot be cured by
invoking power under Section 113(1) of the Fair
Compensation Act r/w 105 having been not issued in
the mode and manner prescribed thereunder. By
taking shelter of Section 113 of the Act, Central
Government could not have given the effect of
Notification of Section 105(3) by issuing removal of
difficulties order.
73. A perusal of Section 105(1) of the Fair
Compensation Act clearly indicates that the said
Section is subject to sub-section (3). If the conditions
prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 105 are
not complied with, Section 105 (1) shall not apply to
the enactments relating to land acquisition specified
in the Fourth Schedule. In our view, the order passed
by the Central Government by invoking powers under
Section 113 is inconsistent with the provisions of
Section 105(1) r/ w. Section 105(3). On this ground
also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and
set aside.”
16.1. Section 105 and Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act
reads as under :-
“105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain
cases or to apply with certain modifications.-
(1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this
Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land
acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.
51 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106 of the
Central Government may, by notification, omit or add
to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth
Schedule.
(3) The Central Government shall, by notification,
within one year from the date of commencement of
this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act
relating to the determination of compensation in
accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation
and resettlement specified in the Second and Third
Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families,
shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the
enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall
apply with such exceptions or modifications that do
not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions
of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation
and resettlement as may be specified in the
notification, as the case may be.
(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be
issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft
before each House of Parliament, while it is in session,
for a total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session
immediately following the session or the successive
sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving
the issue of the notification or both Houses agree in
making any modification in the notification, the
notification shall not be issued or, as the case may be,
shall be issued only in such modified form as may be
agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament.
113. Power to remove difficulties.-(1) If any
difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of
this Part, the Central Government may, by order, make
such provisions or give such directions not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may
appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the
removal of the difficulty:
52 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
Provided that no such power shall be exercised
after the expiry of a period of two years from the
commencement of this Act.
(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid,
as soon as may be after it is made, before each House
of Parliament.”
THE FOURTH SCHEDULE
(See section 105)
LIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND
ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT
1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites
and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958).
2. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962).
3. The Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948 (14 of
1948).
4. The Indian Tramways Act, 1886 (11 of 1886)
5. The Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885 (18 of
1885).
6. The Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act,
1978 (33 of 1978).
7. The National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956).
8. The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition
of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962).
9. The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952 (30 of 1952).
10. The Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land
Acquisition) Act, 1948 (60 of 1948).
11. The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and
Development Act, 1957 (20 of 1957).
12. The Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003).
13. The Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989).”
16.2. By virtue of the Section 105(1) of the RFCTLARR
Act, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, have been made
53 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
inapplicable to the enactments as specified in the 4 th Schedule.
The PMP Act is included in the 4th Schedule of the RFCTLARR
Act, which would make the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act
inapplicable to acquisition of the right of user under the PMP
Act. However, for the RFCTLARR Act to be made applicable for
acquisition of the right to user under the PMP Act, what is
necessary is for the Central Government to, within one year
from the date of commencement of the RFCTLARR Act by
notification, direct that any of the provisions of the RFCTLARR
Act being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the
cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the
Fourth Schedule. The manner in which such notification has to
be issued is laid down in Section 105(4) of the RFCTLARR Act.
That such a notification under the provisions of Section 105(3)
of the RFCTLARR Act, has not been issued, within the period of
One year as per the mandate of Section 105(3) of the
RFCTLARR Act is undisputed.
16.3. The provisions of Section 113 of the RFCTLARR Act
is a power to remove difficulty in giving effect to the provisions
of Part XIII of the RFCTLARR Act. The phrase ‘in giving effect to
54 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
the provisions of this Part’, are material and would indicate that
the provisions of Section 113(1) of the RFCTLARR Act can be
only utilised by the Central Government in a manner, which
would sub-serve the implementation of the Statutory Provisions
as contained in Part XIII of the RFCTLARR Act. When Section
105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act mandates that any notification for
applying the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, to the enactments
as specified in the 4th Schedule, has to be issued within one year
of the enactment of the RFCTLARR Act, then once that period is
over, any action under Section 113(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, in
relation to the subject matter covered by Section 105(3) of the
RFCTLARR Act cannot be said to be an act amounting to giving
effect to the provisions of Part XIII of the RFCTLARR Act, as the
mandate to do stands lost due to lapse of time. Thus, what is
now not permissible to be done by use of Section 105(3) of the
RFCTLARR Act, on account of the time for doing so as provided
therein, having expired, the same cannot be permitted to be
done, by use of Section 113(1) of the RFCTLARR Act as the
same would be beyond the scope and ambit of the mandate of
Section 113(1) of the RFCTLARR Act. The power under Section
113(1) of the RFCTLARR Act is for removing the difficulty
55 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
which may arise in giving effect to the provisions of Part XIII of
the RFCTLARR Act and not to revive a power which has been
lost on account of passage of time.
16.4. It would be therefore apparent, that the Notification
dated 28.08.2015, which is in exercise of the powers under
Section 113(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, cannot be said to be a
substitute under the notification of Section 105(3) of the
RFCTLARR Act, which alone can have the effect of applying of
the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act to the enactments in Fourth
Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, which on account of lapse of
the time period as contemplated therein, has now become
unavailable to the Central Government.
17. Though Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgments as quoted in para 4.9
above, however, in our considered opinion, having gone through
them, we do not think that they are of any assistance to the
contentions advanced by him, in view of what we have
discussed above, as the matter will have to be decided on the
basis of the Statutory provisions of the PMP Act, the RFCTLARR
56 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
Act and the NH Act, which we have already discussed above.
18. Though equality has been claimed by the petitioners
vis-a-vis the provisions of the NH Act and RFCTLARR Act and a
plea of arbitratriness and unreasonableness has been raised,
however while testing such a plea the learned Constitutional
Bench, has laid down the following propositions in State of
Bombay Vs. F. N. Balsara (1951) SCC 860 :
“(1) The presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality
of an enactment, since it must be assumed that the legislature
understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own
people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by
experience and its discriminations are based on adequate
grounds.
(2) The presumption may be rebutted in certain cases by
showing that on the face of the statute, there is no classification
at all and no difference peculiar to any individual or class and
not applicable to any other individual or class, and yet the law
hits only a particular individual or class.
(3) The principle of equality does not mean that every law must
have universal application for all persons who are not by nature,
attainment or circumstances in the same position, and the
varying needs of different classes of persons often require
separate treatment.
(4) The principle does not take away from the State the power
of classifying persons for legitimate purposes.
(5) Every classification is in some degree likely to produce some
57 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odtinequality, and mere production of inequality is not enough.
(6) If a law deals equally with members of a well-defined class,
it is not obnoxious and it is not open to the charge of denial of
equal protection on the ground that it has no application to
other persons.
(7) While reasonable classification is permissible, such
classification must be based upon some real and substantial
distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the object
sought to be attained, and the classification cannot be made
arbitrarily and without any substantial basis.”
19. What we find is that the PMP Act, considers a totally
different situation altogether, where rights in ‘land’ are not
acquired but merely a ‘right to user’ of the land is permitted for
laying a pipeline underneath, at a depth of 2-4 meters which is
a class in itself, requiring separate treatment, for which
compensation is to be awarded, which is compensation based
upon a reasonable classification, on account the limited right of
user which is being acquired, which as indicated above by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya (supra) and
therefore would negate the plea of arbitrariness or
unreasonableness.
20. In the result, we do not find any merit in these
petitions. They are therefore dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
58 WP.404-2024 – Judgment.odt
Considering the circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/04/2025 19:26:36