Kerala High Court
Kochi Selam Petroleum Gas Pipeline vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2025
1
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO.3256 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 KOCHI SELAM PETROLEUM GAS PIPELINE
SURAKSHITHAWA NASHTAPRIHARA JANAKEEYA SAMITHI
(REG NO.TSR/TC/4/2019) ROOM NO.10/1053K, PATTIKAD P.O.,
THRISSUR-6809 652, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIL
KUMAR O.S., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. O.K.SIVARAMAN NAIR
2 ANIL KUMAR O.S., AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. O.K.SIVARAMAN NAIR, OTTULLIL HOUSE,
MANAKKULANGARA P.O., KODAKARA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 684
3 SANTHOSH K., AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. KUTTAPPAN C.C., PUTHANPURAKKAL, NADATHIPARA,
PANNIYANKARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678 683
4 GEETHA, AGED 46 YEARS,
KALLAMKADU HOUSE, CHITTIPPARA, VENGODI P.O.,
PALAKKAD DIST., PIN-678 622.
5 RAVEENDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O. KOCHURAMAN, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, KODAKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADVS.
RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
MAYA M.
2
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR/COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
KOCHI-SALEM PIPELINE PROJECT, 2ND FLOOR, KARUN ENCLAVE,
S.N.JUNCTION, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 301.
4 KOCHI-SALEM PIPELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MALAYIL MAJORITY BUILDING, ROOM NO.174-G,
11 FLOOR, REFINERY ROAD, KUNDANNUR, MARAD P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 304.
5 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
P.B.NO.2, AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM-682 302,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 036,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SMT.POOJA MENON
GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.JAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).12196/2019, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12196 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
JOSEPH A.C. [PARTY], AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. CHUMMAR, AKKARE HOUSE,
HOLY ANGELS ROAD, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001.
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR/COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
KOCHI-SALEM PIPELINE PROJECT, 2ND FLOOR, KARUN ENCLAVE,
S.N JUNCTION, THRIPUNITHIURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 301.
3 KOCHI-SALEM PIPELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALAYIL MAJORITY
BUILDING, ROOM NO 174-G, II FLOOR, REFINERY ROAD,
KUNDANNUR, MARAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 304.
4 TANU JENY JOHN, W/O. JENY JOHN, THATTIL HOUSE,
MASTER AVENUE, MUNDUPALAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 006.
5 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
P.B NO. 2, AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 302,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
6 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 036,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.S.KIRAN, CGC
SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
SRI.K.B.GANGESH
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURIAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SMT.POOJA MENON
GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.JAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).3256/2019, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
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 4th respondent in W.P(C) No.3256 of 2019 to
lay pipelines through the properties in question. The 1st
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 4th
respondent – a Private Limited Company has been trespassing
into the property of the members of the 1st petitioner Society like
petitioners 2 to 5 for laying pipelines for the transportation of
Liquefied Petroleum Gas(LPG) from Kochi to Tamil Nadu. The 4th
respondent Company is stated to be a joint venture of Bharat
6
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
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
7
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
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 4th 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
8
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
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 4th 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 4th
respondent does not get any right to enter the
properties of the petitioners.
iii. The declaration under Section 6(1), read with sub-
section (4) thereto, has already taken place by vesting
9W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
the properties on Petronet CCK. In the light of the
above vesting, the 4th respondent cannot enter the
properties for laying pipelines.
iv. Without prejudice, assuming that the 4th respondent is
entitled to enter the properties for laying of pipelines,
the petitioners are entitled to compensation under
Section 10 of the Act read with Rules 4 and 4A of the
Rules.
v. He would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya and Others v. State
of Gujarat and Others [(2016) 9 SCC 791] in
support of the submissions.
7. Per contra, Sri.Saji Varghese, the learned counsel would
contend that:
i. The properties in question have already vested with
the Central Government under Section 6(1) of the Act
pursuant to the notification dated 19.04.2000
[Annexure R4(a)]. There can be a separate vesting of
10W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
the right to use the unused stretch of land under
Section 6(4) in favour of the 4th respondent as per
Annexure R4(c) dated 01.02.2016.
ii. In view of the original vesting and payment of
compensation, the petitioners have no say in the
matter, as held by the Apex Court in various
judgments.
iii. Even though the petitioners have no legal right, they
have been provided some compensation, so they
cannot have any grievance in that regard.
8. I have considered the rival contentions and the
connected records.
9. Two questions arise for consideration in these writ
petitions as under:
i. Is the 4th respondent entitled for the “right of user” under
the Act, as claimed by it?
ii. Assuming that the 4th respondent is entitled for the right
of user, what is the extent of compensation eligibility of
11W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
the petitioners herein?
10. For an effective consideration of the 1st question framed
as above, an evaluation of the various provisions of the Act is
required to be made.
11. The Act, promulgated in the year 1962, provides for the
acquisition of the “right of user in land” for the specific purpose
of laying pipelines for the transport of petroleum or minerals.
Section 3 provides for the publication of notification for
acquisition, whenever transport of petroleum or minerals
through pipelines laid down by either the Union Government or
the State Government or a Corporation is necessitated. What is
sought to be acquired under Section 3 is only the “right of user”
in the land. On the basis of the notification issued as above,
Section 4 of the Act, permits the officers of the
Government/Corporation to enter the property for survey etc.
Section 5 of the Act provides for the hearing of objections to the
notification issued under Section 3 by the competent authority
and the adjudication of the afore objections.
12
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
12. Section 6 of the Act, over which there is much dispute
reads as under:
“6. Declaration of acquisition of right of user.–(1)
Where no objections under sub-section (1) of section 5
have been made to the competent authority within the
period specified therein or where the competent authority
has disallowed the objections under sub-section (2) of
that section, that authority shall, as soon as may be,
either make a report in respect of the land described in
the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3, or
make different reports in respect of different parcels of
such land, to the Central Government containing his
recommendations on the objections, together with the
record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of
that Government and upon receipt of such report the
Central Government shall, if satisfied that such land is
required for laying any pipeline for the transport of
petroleum or any mineral, declare, by notification in the
Official Gazette, that the right of user in the land for laying
the pipelines should be acquired and different declarations
may be made from time to time in respect of different
parcels of the land described in the notification issued
under sub-section (1) of section 3, 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-
13
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
section (1), the right of user in the land specified therein
shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from
all encumbrances.
(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been
issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 but no
declaration in respect of any parcel of land covered by that
notification has been published under this section within
a period of one year from the date of that notification, that
notification shall cease to have effect on the expiration of
that period.
(3A) No declaration in respect of any land covered by a
notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3,
published after the commencement of the Petroleum
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)
Amendment Act, 1977, shall be made after the expiry of
three years from the date of such publication.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(2), the Central Government may, on such terms and
conditions as it may think fit to impose, direct by order in
writing, that the right of user in the land for laying the
pipelines shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government vest, either on the date of publication of the
declaration or, on such other date as may be specified in
the direction, in the State Government or the corporation
proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of
such user in the land shall, subject to the terms and
conditions so imposed, vest in that State Government or
14
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
corporation, as the case may be, free from all
encumbrances.”
Sub-section (1) to Section 6 provides for the declaration of the
acquisition of the “right of user” in the land in favour of the
Central Government. Sub-section (2) provides that once the
declaration under sub-section (1) is made, the “right of user” of
the land to absolutely vest in the Central Government. Sub-
section (4) provides further that the property, instead of being
vested with the Central Government, may vest in the Corporation
or the State Government, and thereupon, the “right of user” in
the land shall be on the State Government or the Corporation
concerned.
13. It is on the basis of the vesting under Section 6 of the
Act, the pipelines are being laid by the State Government,
Central Government, or the Corporation as provided under
Section 7. Clause (ia) of Section 7(1) is also relevant and the
same reads as under:
“(ia) for laying pipelines for the transport of petroleum,
15W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central
Government or corporation to use such land for laying
pipelines for transporting any mineral and where the
right of user in any land has so vested for laying pipelines
for transporting any mineral, it shall be lawful for such
person to use such land for laying pipelines for
transporting petroleum or any other mineral and.”
In the light of the above, independent of the provisions of Section
6(4), any person, upon authorization by the Central Government,
can use the land in question for laying of pipelines. This specific
provision has been introduced, in my opinion, to cover cases of
like nature, when a declaration/vesting has already taken place,
entitling the Government or the Corporation to permit the use of
the property by any other person. Once the laying of the pipeline
is over, Section 8 of the Act entitles any person authorized by the
Central Government/Corporation, after giving notice to the
landowner to enter the property for examination of the pipelines,
etc. The owner of the land is having certain restrictions with
respect to the use of the land as laid down under Section 9.
14. Section 10 of the Act provides for extension of
16
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
compensation and the same reads as under:
“10. Compensation.–(1) Where in the exercise of the
powers conferred by section 4, section 7 or section 8 by
any person, any damage, loss or injury is sustained by
any person interested in the land under which the
pipeline is proposed to be, or is being, or has been laid,
the Central Government, the State Government or the
corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay
compensation to such person for such damage, loss or
injury, the amount of which shall be determined by the
competent authority in the first instance.
(2) If the amount of compensation determined by the
competent authority under sub-section (1) is not
acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of
compensation shall, on application by either of the
parties to the District Judge within the limits of whose
jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, be
determined by that District Judge.
(3) The competent authority or the District Judge while
determining the compensation under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall have due
regard to the damage or loss sustained by any person
interested in the land by reason of–
(i) the removal of trees of standing crops, if any, on
the land while exercising the power under section
4, section 7 or section 8;
(ii) the temporary severance of the land under which
17W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
the pipeline has been laid from other lands
belonging to, or in the occupation of, such person;
or
(iii) any injury to any other property, whether movable
or immovable, or the earnings of such persons
caused in any other manner:
PROVIDED that in determining the compensation no
account shall be taken of any structure or other
improvement made in the land after the date of the
notification under sub-section (1) of section 3.
(4) Where the right of user of any land has vested in the
Central Government, the State Government or the
corporation, the Central Government, the State
Government or the corporation, as the case may be,
shall, in addition to the compensation, if any, payable
under sub-section (1), be liable to pay to the owner and
to any other person whose right of enjoyment in that
land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by
reason of such vesting, compensation calculated at ten
per cent. of the market value of that land on the date of
the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3.
(5) The market value of the land on the said date shall
be determined by the competent authority and if the
value so determined by that authority is not acceptable
to either of the parties, it shall, on application by either
of the parties to the District Judge referred to in sub-
section (2), be determined by that District Judge.
18
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
(6) The decision of the District Judge under sub-section
(2) or sub-section (5) shall be final.”
Sub-section (1) to Section 10 entitles the owner of the land for
compensation on account of damage, loss or injury suffered by
him when survey under Section 4, laying of pipeline under
Section 7 and subsequent inspection under Section 8 is carried
out. The compensation paid under sub-section (1), can be
sought to be enhanced by making an application under sub-
section (2) by the owner of the land or sought to be reduced by
the Government or the Corporation concerned. Sub-section (3)
lays down the matters to be considered while determining the
compensation under sub-section (1) or (2). Sub-section (4)
provides for the compensation payable over and above the
compensation under sub-section (1) for the loss of the right of
enjoyment in the land at 10% of the market value of the land as
on the date of notification. The compensation under sub-section
(4) can also be challenged under sub-section (5) by either party.
15. It is on the basis of the afore broad provisions laid down
19
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
under the Act, that the rival claims are to be considered.
16. As already noticed, Annexure R4(a) notification dated
19.04.2000 has been issued by the Government of India by
acquiring the “right of user” with respect to the properties
mentioned in the schedule to the notification. The afore
notification reads as under:
“Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
New Delhi, the 19th April, 2000
S.O.869 – Whereas by the notification of the Government
of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
number S.O.3405 dated the 22nd November, 1999 issued
under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)
Act, 1962, (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as said
Act), the Central Government declared its intention to
acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the
Schedule appended to that notification, for the purpose
of laying pipelines for the transportation of motor spirit,
superior kerosene oil and high speed diesel from the
Irimpanam installation of Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited. Irimpanam, Kochi in the State of Kerala to Karur
in the State of Tamil Nadu and pipelines should be laid
by M/s.Petronet CCK Limited;
And, whereas, the copies of said Gazette notification has
been made available to the public from the 10 th day of
20
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
December 1999;
And, whereas, the competent authority has under sub-
section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his
report to the Central Government;
And, whereas, the Central Government, after considering
the said report, is satisfied that the said lands are
required for laying of the pipelines for the transport of
petroleum products;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that the right of user in the
land, specified in the Schedule appended to this
notification, are hereby required for laying the pipelines;
And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby directs that the right of user in the
said land shall, instead of vesting in the Central
Government, vest, from the date of the publication of
this declaration, in the Petronet CCK Limited, free from
all encumbrances.”
In my opinion, the afore notification is in two parts. The first
part is with reference to the vesting of the “right of user” under
the provisions of Section 6(1) on the Central Government. The
latter part is with reference to the provisions of Section 6(4) as
regards vesting of the property on Petronet CCK instead of the
21
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
Central Government, free from all encumbrances.
17. Both sides admit that the properties mentioned in the
schedule to Annexure R4(a) notification is a continuous stretch
of land passing through various survey numbers in various
Villages with a width of 18 feet and that out of the said 18 feet
of properties, Petronet CCK has only utilized 9 feet of land for
laying their pipelines.
18. In the light of the afore, it is further admitted by all that
an area of 9 feet was not originally utilized though the “right of
user” was acquired by the Central Government and vested on the
Petronet CCK. The fact that as regards the entire 18 feet of
properties, compensation under Section 10 was fixed and paid to
the petitioners is also not in dispute.
19. It is in the light of the afore, the subsequent notification
at Annexure R4(c) is to be noticed. The notification, to the extent
relevant herein, reads as under:
“MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 1st February, 2016
22W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
S.O.341(E) – Whereas by the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O.No.621 dated 07.03.2000, S.O.No.869
dated 19.04.2000, S.O.1632 dated 21.07.2000, S.O.982
dated 08.05.2000, S.O.2496 dated 14.11.2000,
S.O.1455 dated 28.06.2000, S.O.558 dated 15.03.2001,
S.O.217 dated 20.01.99, S.O.219 dated 20.01.99 in the
following Schedule, the Central Government directed
that Right of User in the said land vest in Petronet CCK
Limited free from all encumbrances for the purpose of
laying pipeline for the transportation of motor spirit,
Superior Kerosene and High Speed Diesel from the
Irimpanam Installation of Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Irimpanam, Kochi in the State of Kerala to Karur
in the State of Tamil Nadu and pipeline should be laid by
M/s. Petronet CCK Limited;
And whereas, by notification of the Government of India
in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O.1427
dated 11.06.2004 as required under explanation-I of the
rule of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of
User in Land) Rules, 1963, the Central Government
declared the date 15.12.2002 as the date of termination
of operation in the state of Kerala after the pipeline has
been laid;
Now, M/s.Kochi Salem Pipeline Private Limited intends to
lay LPG Pipeline for the purpose of transportation of LPG
from Kochi Refinery in the State of Kerala to Salem in the
23W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
State of Tamil Nadu through the ROU in the said lands in
Thrissur and Palakkad Districts;
And whereas as Petronet CCK Limited as per their letter
No.CHN/CCK/VPT/KSPPL dated 11-8-2015 intimated
their in-principle approval to permit M/s.KSPPL to lay
their LPG Pipeline from Kochi to Salem in the existing
ROU owned by Petronet CCK Limited;
And whereas as the Central Government after
considering the request, satisfied that the said lands are
required for laying of LPG Pipeline for transportation of
LPG from Kochi Refinery to Salem;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 4 of Section 6 of the said Act the Central
Government hereby directs that Right of User in the said
land shall be used by Kochi Salem Pipeline Private
Limited for laying LPG Pipeline from Kochi Refinery to
Salem and pipeline should be laid by M/s.Kochi Salem
Pipeline Private Limited.”
20. A reading of the notification issued as above, would
show that as regards the laying of pipelines by Petronet CCK, as
early as 15.12.2002, the declaration of termination of operation
has been made by the Central Government. The 4th respondent
intended to lay LPG pipelines from Kochi to Salem through the
very same properties covered by Annexure R4(a) notification and
24
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
the Petronet CCK had approved the proposal by the Central
Government permitting the vesting of the “right of user” with
respect to the very same property on the 4th respondent herein.
It is in such circumstances that the Government issued Annexure
R4(c) by directing the “right of user” with respect to the very
same 18 feet of land covered by Annexure R4(a) on the 4th
respondent herein.
21. I am of the opinion that Section 6 of the Act only speaks
about the acquisition of the “right of user”. Such “right of user”
can be upon more than one Corporation with respect to the
property in question. There is no restriction under the Act with
respect to such right of user being transferred or vested on more
than one Corporation. This is all the more so, since the property
sought to be covered in Annexure R4(c) is the very same
property referred to and covered by Annexure R4(a).
22. It may also be added that with respect to the
interpretation of the provisions of Section 7(1)(ia), noticed
above, the 4th respondent is entitled to lay pipelines on the
25
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
property on the basis of the subsequent order at Annexure R4(c).
23. In the light of the afore, I further notice that as regards
the stretch of 18 feet of properties owned by the petitioners,
pursuant to Annexure R4(a) notification dated 19.04.2000
vesting under sub-section (1) of Section 6 has already taken
place followed with the vesting under sub-section (4) therein.
Admittedly as against the afore, the compensation is also
received by the petitioners. In the light of the above, it is to be
noticed that once the “right of user” is so vested in the
Government/Corporation and compensation received by the
petitioners, it is not the lookout of the petitioners/owners of the
properties as to the person (Corporation) who is actually using
the property. The complaints raised by the petitioners are
essentially to the effect that the “right of user” was only available
to the Petronet CCK and not the 4th respondent herein. In Gulam
Mustafa and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others
[AIR 1977 SC 448], the Apex Court held that even in the face
of the authority diverting the property for different purposes,
26
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
there cannot be any challenge to the acquisition proceedings. To
the same effect is the judgment of the Apex Court in C. Padma
and Others v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil
Nadu and others [(1997) 2 SCC 627]. The legal position has
been summarised by the Apex Court later in Sulochana
Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport and
Others [2010 KHC 4525] as under:
“16. In view of the above, the law can be summarised
that once the land is acquired, it vests in the State free
from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the land
owner how his land is used and whether the land is being
used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any
other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the
land vests in the State. He has a right to get
compensation only for the same. The person interested
cannot claim the right of restoration of land on any
ground, whatsoever.”
The principles laid down as above, in my opinion, would apply to
the facts and circumstances of the case at hand also. The
petitioners had received compensation under Section 10(4) of
the Act as regards the right of user acquired by Annexure R4(a)
27
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
and thereafter, the petitioners do not have any say with respect
to the actual use of the properties or the subsequent exercise of
the power under Section 6(4) in favour of the 4th respondent,
especially in view of the admitted position that only 18 feet of
land is acquired/used.
24. In the light of the afore, I hold that the 4th respondent
is entitled to proceed with the project envisaged in the light of
Annexure R4(c).
25. Even on the face of the afore, the second point arises
for consideration as to whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under Section 10.
26. As already noticed, Section 10 provides for
compensation with respect to 10% of the market value of the
property under sub-section (4) thereto, apart from the
compensation for the damage, loss, or injury under sub-section
(1) to be determined by taking into account the various scenarios
visualized under sub-section (3). It is only the compensation
under sub-section 10(4), that cannot be claimed by the
28
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
petitioners in the light of the findings on the first question as
above. As regards the entitlement for the compensation under
sub-section (1), I notice that after 15.12.2002 (declaration of
date of termination of operation), the petitioners were enjoying
that portion of the 18 feet of land after excluding the land already
utilized for laying pipelines by Petronet CCK. It is admitted by
both sides that many of such properties were being cultivated
also. A perusal of the photographs produced along with the writ
petition would also show that on account of the subsequent
notification at Annexure R4(c), the 4th respondent has exercised
the provisions of Sections 4 and 7 etc. of the Act while surveying,
laying pipelines, etc. When that be so, the petitioners, in my
opinion, are entitled to compensation under Section 10(1) to be
quantified under sub-section (3) with reference to the relevant
provisions of the Rules made thereunder. The filing of an
application under the Rules has to be made within the time frame
fixed under Rule 4 of the Rules. However, the time limit fixed
thereunder would have expired with respect to certain claims and
29
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
would depend on the issue of the “date of termination of
operation” in certain cases. The petitioners have a case that the
“date of termination of operation” as regards the 4th respondent
has not been notified. In such circumstances, taking note of the
fact that the eligibility of the petitioners for compensation under
Section 10(1) of the Act is declared only by this verdict, as a one-
time measure, I permit the petitioners to file an appropriate
claim before the competent authority within 60 days from today
– where the time has already expired – and I permit the
petitioners to file the claim with respect to the “date of
termination of the operation” – in other cases.
Resultantly, these writ petitions are disposed of as under:
i. The challenge against the laying of pipelines by the 4th
respondent on the basis of Annexure R4(c) is
repelled.
ii. It is declared that the petitioners would be entitled for
the compensation prescribed under Section 10(1) of
the Act.
30
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
iii. The petitioners are permitted to lodge the claim for
compensation as laid down under paragraph 26 of this
judgment.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
31W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12196/2019
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. 0051144
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER 22-06-2018.
EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC RECEIPT NO. 00511142
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS BROTHER DATED
22-06-2018.
EXHIBIT P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX NO. 00511143 ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER AND THE BROTHER DATED 22-06-
2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 04-01-2019
INCLUDING THE ENCLOSURES OBTAINED UNDER THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ALTERED
ALIGNMENT OF THE LPG PIPELINE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13–10-2018
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF
THE ACT PROPOSING FRESH ACQUISITION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED NIL FURNISHED BY
THE PETITIONER AND OTHER LAND-OWNERS.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING DATED
24-11-2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 29-11-2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE
SECRETARY, NENMANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED
21-12-2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 04-01-2019
RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT FIRE
OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES.
32
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT IN WP(C) 3256 OF 2019 SANS THE
ANNEXURE.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR DATED 28-3-2019 ALONG WITH THE
REPORT ENCLOSED THERETO.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.06.2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAYOUT PLAN OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT’S PETROL PUMP DATED 21/03/2003.
EXHIBIT-R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE DATED
30/04/2019 ISSUED BY THE NEYYATINKARA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
33
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
APPENDIX OF WP(C)NO.3256/2019
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.05.2015
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT)
NO.90/2019/RD DATED 07.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.SO
2650(E) DATED 23.09.2015EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.SO
341(E) DATED 01.02.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
06.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE THEN KOCHI-SALEM
PETROLEUM GAS PIPELINE SURAKSHITHATHVA
NASHTAPARIHARA JANAKEEYA SAMITHI BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.04.2017
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
NATURE OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN IN CONNECTION
WITH THE LPG PIPELINE PROJECT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN,
THENKURISSI TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
20/6/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
KUZHALMANDAM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
20/6/2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
34
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
WADAKKANCHERRY DATED 21/6/2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
PRESENT STATUS OF THE LAND UNDER WHICH
PIPELINE IS BEING LAID.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.34/2019/KADY-1 DATED
06.01.2021 OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY KOCHI –
SALEM PIPELINE PVT. LTD (KSPPL).
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR OF COMPETENT
AUTHORITY (KSPPL) DATED 25.04.2020.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED
15.12.2016 PRESIDED OVER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME OF THE LANDS USED FOR
LAYING PIPELINE.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE SOIL TESTING REPORT OF THE
PROPERTY OF BABU DEVASSYKUTTY IN SY.NO.248
DATED 06.03.2025.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SOIL TESTING REPORT OF THE
PROPERTY OF BABU DEVASSYKUTTY IN SY.NO.248-1
DATED 06.03.2025.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SOIL TESTING REPORT OF THE
PROPERTY OF ANILKUMAR O S, SY.NO.930/3 DATED
06.03.2025.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE SOIL TESTING REPORT OF THE
PROPERTY OF TAJI ANTONY, SY.NO.243, 244 DATED
06.03.2025.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE SOIL TESTING REPORT OF THE
PROPERTY OF JJI MON N A, SY.NO.245/5 DATED
06.03.2025.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF NAME AND DETAILS OF MEMBERS OF
PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.
35
W.P(C) Nos.3256 and 12196 of 2019 2025:KER:24490
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R4(A) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION SO 869 DATED
19.04.2000 AND SO 1455 DATED 28.06.2000
ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
ANNEXURE R4(B) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION S.O.2650(E)
DATED 23.09.2015.
ANNEXURE R4(C) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION S.O.341(E) DATED
01.02.2016.
ANNEXURE R4(D) TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION NO.1236 GIVEN TO
2ND PETITIONER DATED 14.05.2016.
ANNEXURE R4(E) TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION NO.1306 GIVEN TO
3RD PETITIONER DATED 24.03.2016.
ANNEXURE R4(F) TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION NO.166/ELPY GIVEN
TO 4TH PETITIONER DATED 13.01.2016.
ANNEXURE R4(G) TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION NOS.1272/1281/1282
GIVEN TO 5TH PETITIONER DATED 17.05.2016.
[ad_1]
Source link