Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 276 (AP)

Orumpati Dasaiah, S/o. Ramaiah v. Union of India

2025-02-13

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2025
ORDER: VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J. 1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “To issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the action of the 2 nd respondent in purporting to lay a natural gas pipeline connection Krishnapatnam port to Hyderabad for the benefit of the 4 th respondent BPCL and consequently consuming the our fish and prawns tanks in Sy No 18/3 22/3 of Pallipadu Village Indukuripeta Mandal Nellore district Andhra Pradesh is arbitrary and not in public interest and also declare that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc CA/AP/KHPL/SPSR Nellore/ 104R/2024 dated 21.03.2024 rejecting our objections in respect of the said land acquisition is arbitrary illegal and ultravirus the provisions of the petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Acquisition of Right Of User In Land Act 1962 and strike down the said proceedings and direct the respondents to forbear from acquiring our fish and prawns tanks and also direct the 1st respondent to explore the alternative/more viable/ economical alignment for providing the transportation of natural gas pipeline connecting Krishnapatnam port to Hyderabad by sincerely considering our objections and other farmers” 2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioners are residents of Pallipadu Village, Indukuripet Mandal, Nellore District, eking out their livelihood depending upon the Fish/Prawn culture as small farmers as well as agricultural labour. The first petitioner possessed a fish tank in an extent of Ac.3-22 cents in Khata No.427 in Sy.No.18/3, while the second petitioner possessed fish tank in an extent of Ac.7-00 in Khata No.365 of Pallipdu Village, Indukuripeta Mandal, Nellore District. It is the case that BPCL proposed gas pipeline passing through the land of the petitioners, which affects the fish tanks of the petitioner, including the connection of water pipelines. Respondent No.2 issued notice in Form-III dated 13.05.2022 to the petitioners to submit objections if any, as it has been decided to lay a pipeline cross the prawn and fish tanks to provide connectivity for natural gas transportation by BPCL from Krishnapatnam port to Hyderabad. Despite adjacent lands being available, for reasons unknown, the authorities opted to acquire the land of the petitioners. Notices under Form 3(3) were issued to the petitioners, to which the petitioners submitted objections. Despite adjacent lands being available, for reasons unknown, the authorities opted to acquire the land of the petitioners. Notices under Form 3(3) were issued to the petitioners, to which the petitioners submitted objections. Despite considering the objections, the second respondent rejected the objections on the ground that a decision had already been made to lay the pipeline from Krishnapatnam to Hyderabad in the public interest. The petitioners contend that, no inquiry was conducted. The petitioners submitted further representations to Respondent No.2 to reconsider the decision contained in the proceedings dated 21.03.2024, however, there was no response to the representations. The petitioners contend that due to the gas pipeline being laid across the subject land, they are not able to cultivate as they previously did. The presence of the gas pipeline is making it impossible to cultivate the remaining land and laying of gas pipeline through fish/prawn tanks is highly objectionable since natural gas pipelines emit a significant amount of heat, slight odour which is detrimental to the existence of fish, prawn etc, and requested to grant the relief as prayed for. 3. Respondent No.2 – Competent Authority and Special Deputy Collector, Krishnapatnam – Hyderabad Pipeline Project, filed detailed counter affidavit, denying material allegations. It is submitted that, Respondent No.2 after ascertaining the sales statistics from respective departments i.e. Registration Department preceding three years form the date of intimation date i.e. 3(1) notification and after adding 100% solatium, fixed determination fo market value as per Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Award No.60/2024 determining the compensation to be paid was issued on 13.04.2024 by Respondent No.2 and has specified that any party aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation may prefer an application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, not later than 90 days of the receipt of the intimation from the Competent Authority under Rule 4(3) of P&MP Rules, 1963 under Section 10(5) of P&MP Act, 1962, in case the compensation passed is not satisfied by the petitioners. 4. 4. It is further submitted that, since there was no reply from both the petitioners to the notice issued by Respondent No.2 calling for submission of bank details, aadhaar card, updated adangal, pattadar passbook for paying compensation to bank account of petitioners and after waiting for time, the time for filing claims is lapsed the eligible compensation is already deposited vide letter ref.AWARD No.60/2024/AP/Nellore/Pallipadu dated 10.07.2024 for the land pertaining to the petitioners under Section 10(5) and 11(5) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of User in Land) Act, 1962 before the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge. No reply was received from both the petitioners to the notice issued by Respondent No.2 calling for submission of claims for determining compensation. There was no protest from the petitioners about compensation either in the shape of written or oral from both the petitioners to the notice dated 26.06.2024 issued by Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 submitted timeline events, para-wise reply and reiterated that there are no objections by the majority of the land owners and farmers against the project except the writ petitioners and few other individuals ho filed similar cases. In W.P.No.8951 of 2022 directed the authorities to pay compensation within time fixed and never ordered for realignment of the project. It is submitted that, in the interest of few persons, the alignment of the project shall not be changed, which will cause huge loss to the public exchequer as majority of the work is already in progress and 70% of the project is completed in both the states and the entire project will become unviable. That apart, the lands of the petitioners are ideally located for laying the present stretch of the pipeline more particularly, as there is no scope for laying of the same towards other wise of the land. It is submitted that the lands of the petitioners are categorized as agricultural lands, but not commercial lands, and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Respondent No.4 – Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vijayawada filed detailed counter affidavit. It is submitted that land of an extent of Ac.131 acres, constituting 13% of the total land owned by the petitioners is getting affected. 5. Respondent No.4 – Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vijayawada filed detailed counter affidavit. It is submitted that land of an extent of Ac.131 acres, constituting 13% of the total land owned by the petitioners is getting affected. The depth of the fish tank as mentioned by the petitioners is 10 feet, but the pipelines are laid at the higher depth of 50 feet below which is having sufficient gap/space from the fish tank and water pipelines connecting the fish tanks which are above the pipelines. The operations of the fish tank will not be affected by the pipelines even during the time when it is laid under it as the pipelines are laid through horizontal directional drilling and not by conventional way of removing the top soil by digging it from the top surface of the land, then lay pipelines and cover it above. The fish tank will not be touched or removed and pipelines will be laid by drilling/boring like metro rail lines are laid under the public roads in cities or like roadways through tunnels without disturbing the upper layer and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The petitioner filed reply affidavit dated 21.08.2024, denying the allegations made in the counter affidavits by Respondent Nos.2 & 4 respectively, raising concerns over the fish/shrim tanks carried on by him, while reiterating the contentions raised in the writ affidavit. 7. During hearing, Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions urged in the affidavit, would submit that, laying the gas pipeline through fish/prawn tanks is highly objectionable since natural gas pipelines emit significant amount of heat, slight odour which is detrimental to the existence of fish and prawns. He further submits that, there is also the risk of potential leakage in the pipelines, which could expose the entire fish/prawn tanks to fire hazards and laying of gas pipeline across the subject land will result in loss of market value, causing substantial loss to the petitioners. He argues that the entire acquisition process is not in the public interest and there is no justification for acquiring fish or prawn tanks and requested to grant the relief as prayed for. 8. He argues that the entire acquisition process is not in the public interest and there is no justification for acquiring fish or prawn tanks and requested to grant the relief as prayed for. 8. On the other hand, Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 while reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, would submit that, each petitioner has one pond of 10 feet depth on the land which has been acquired, whereas, the pipelines are to be laid at the depth of 50 feet having sufficient space without disturbing the existing structure. The operation of the fish tank will not be affected in any manner even during laying of the pipeline as pipelines are to be laid through horizontal directional drilling without disturbing the pond and not by conventional way of removing the top soil of digging. He further submits that, the presence of pipelines do not prohibit the petitioners to carry on their livelihood of aquaculture, since the nature of soil and other features of the land would remain the same and the petitioners could continue their activities on the land. 9. Learned counsel would further contend that, the proposed alignment under the land (fish tanks) of the petitioners are linear and do not include curves as anticipated by the petitioners. The alignment of the pipelines as finalized considering the restrictions prescribed under Section 7(i) of PMP Act and also after considering safety and technical aspects involved thereon. He submits that the said lands were categorized as agriculture lands and do not fall under the categories as per the revenue records. He contends that the present alignment f the pipelines had been fixed based on Pre-feasibility Report, Detailed Project Report, Detailed Engineering Survey Report and avoidance of populated areas, hence the contention of the petitioners that the present alignment of pipeline is irrational and incorrect. 10. He submits that the residential areas are far away from the proposed pipeline and there are no residential houses or dwelling units within the distance of 100 meters of the land of the petitioners wherein pipelines are laid and such contention of the petitioners is incorrect and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 11. 10. He submits that the residential areas are far away from the proposed pipeline and there are no residential houses or dwelling units within the distance of 100 meters of the land of the petitioners wherein pipelines are laid and such contention of the petitioners is incorrect and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4- Corporation, mostly adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for Respondent No.2, while contending that all safety guidelines and parameters were strictly followed while laying the pipeline and the alignment of the pipelines had been fixed by the subject matter experts after extensive pre-feasiblity reports, detailed project report, etc. Furthermore, the proposed alignment under the land of the petitioners are linear and do not include curves as anticipated by the petitioners. 12. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the said report takes into consideration the difficulty of laying pipelines from under the fish ponds, which are extensively dug up in the survey numbers, which are mentioned in the notification. He submits that heavy expenditure would be incurred if laying of pipelines has to be carried on from underneath the fish ponds, the exact extent which is not mentioned in the report and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. 14. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the respondents/authorities have followed proper procedure while laying the pipeline and passing the Award? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the relief as prayed for? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 15. Undisputedly, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), one of the major Central Public Sector Oil Company which is denoted as one of the Maharatna of Public undertakings in development of India, engaged in refining, marketing and distribution of Petroleum and Petroleum Products is laying underground a multi-product petroleum pipeline between Krishnapatnam port Terminal to Malkapur Terminal, Hyderabad with a length of 423 Kms for transportation of petrol and their products, for which Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board, New Delhi has approved the project vide letter dated 17.02.2020. 16. 16. In pursuance of Section 2(a) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962, Respondent No.2 – Special Deputy Collector has been authorized to perform the functions of the Competent Authority. Further, two surveys were conducted by the competent authority along with Licensed Surveyor and retired Revenue Officers to assess exact ground realities. The right of user in the land for Pallepadu village of Indukurpet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District has been acquired certain land for laying proposed multi-product underground pipeline for transportation of Petrol and Petroleum Products from Krishnapatnam Port Terminal to Malkapur, Hyderabad Terminal. 17. Notification dated 11.05.2022 under Section 3(1) of the Act was published at public places and other conspicuous places in the village by beat of tom-tom. Individual intimation notices of the notification were also served among persons whose names appeared in the webland for each village maintained by the Government, besides interested persons over the land. All the affected farmers/interested persons were given an opportunity of filing their objections if any against the Notification. Two objections i.e. from the petitioners herein have been received in respect of Pallepadu Village, Indukurpet Mandal within stipulated time by the Competent Authority. The process of hearing of objections/disposal of objections have been held and proceedings have been communicated to the individuals. Gist of the petitions filed by the petitioners, comments of the acquiring body and decision of the Competent Authority are reproduced hereunder: Gist of the petition Comments of the acquiring body Decision of the Competent Authority Petitioner is presently doing acquaculture farming in the land and expressed concerns over safety and security of pipeline post laying. Petitioner requested for realignment of the pipeline in view of aquaculture farming, pipeline is being laid at higher depths through Horizontal Directional Drilling which is safest method. After thorough analysis and technical consideration, the pipeline route was selected and finalized by the Government for public interest. As per finalized route, the alignment is linear and passes through petitioners land which cannot be changed. Compensation will be paid as per the prevailing Government Orders Orders were issued explaining the national importance and safety systems to be adopted while laying the pipeline though Horizontal Directional Drilling method. Therefore the petition is rejected. 18. As per finalized route, the alignment is linear and passes through petitioners land which cannot be changed. Compensation will be paid as per the prevailing Government Orders Orders were issued explaining the national importance and safety systems to be adopted while laying the pipeline though Horizontal Directional Drilling method. Therefore the petition is rejected. 18. From the above, it is clear that, Competent Authority has explained the National Importance and Safety systems to be adopted while laying the pipeline through Horizontal Directional Drilling Method and the Acquiring Body specified that compensation will be paid as per the prevailing government orders. The substance of declaration was published in the village on 9.12.2023 and other conspicuous places besides beat of tom-tom in the village, thereof the intention of the Government acquiring the Right of User and vesting the right of user in the land with BPCL, free from all encumbrances. 19. From the material produced before this Court, it is evident that a team has conducted Panchanama and measurements of exact extent of land affected in respect of each farmer were physically shown to the land owners/interested persons. The Panchanama team reported the existing crop damage during the execution process of the project by the affected farmers/interested persons individual wise. 20. The allegation of the petitioners is that their objections dated 09.06.2022 and 07.09.2022 have not been properly considered and the 2 nd respondent has passed the order on 21.03.2024 rejecting their objections. But, the objections of the petitioners have been duly considered in-line with the provisions of the Act and the order was passed by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, a report was sent to the Central Government and upon due consideration of the same, Notification has been published on 20.12.2023 in Gazette of India. Thereafter, Notice dated 21.03.2024 was issued to the petitioners calling for submissions for claims for determining compensation. Since there was no response from the petitioners to the Notice dated 21.03.2024, an Award was passed on 13.04.2024. Further Notice dated 26.06.2024 was also issued to the petitioners requesting them to furnish bank details and other credentials for payment of compensation. Thereafter, Notice dated 21.03.2024 was issued to the petitioners calling for submissions for claims for determining compensation. Since there was no response from the petitioners to the Notice dated 21.03.2024, an Award was passed on 13.04.2024. Further Notice dated 26.06.2024 was also issued to the petitioners requesting them to furnish bank details and other credentials for payment of compensation. Even then, the petitioners did not respond and in view of the above, the 2 nd respondent deposited the compensation amount who refused to take the compensation amount from the Competent Authority referring the dispute to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, whose lands are situated within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Nellore. 21. From the above, it is evident that, the Competent Authority was diligent enough right from the stage of conducting surveys, assessing the geographical, agricultural conditions, publication of declaration by beat of tom- tom in the conspicuous places in the village, the Panchanam Report, evaluating the compensation method, determining the market value, taking into consideration the registration statistics obtained from the Sub-Registrar's Office, Indukurpet for the years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022, calculation of land compensation amount, assessing the trees, crops and other damages, thus, fixed the compensation aptly. Moreover, in the last paragraph of the Award dated 13.04.2024, an appeal provision is made available, enabling the party aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation, may prefer an application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, not later than 90 days of the receipt of the intimation from the Competent Authority under Rule 4(3) of P&MP Rules, 1963 under Section 10(5) of P&MP Act, 1962. But, no such application was made to the District Judge by the petitioners regarding determination of amount of compensation. 22. In Competent Authority Vs. Barangore Jute Factory and Other., 2005 (13) SCC 477 the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not set aside the notification, but took into consideration the observations of the High Court therein that the acquisition of the land was for a project of great national importance, i.e., the construction of a national highway and felt that no useful purpose would be served by quashing the impugned notification at that stage. It also reminded itself of the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. But it held that the consequence of quashing the notification will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners may be more. It felt that the ultimate question would be about the quantum of compensation payable to the land owners. It also observed that the quashing of notification at that stage will give rise to several difficulties. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification would be a herculean task. Hence, the better course would be to compensate the land owners, appropriately for what they have been deprived of. 23. In Shivashakti Sugar Ltd., vs. Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd , [ 2017(4) Supreme 424 ] wherein also the Supreme Court by considering the judgment of the Competent Authority's case (supra), did not deem it fit to quash the notification. 24. In Laljibhai's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that transportation of gas is an activity of highest National importance and requires creation of necessary infrastructure by the State on its own or through private enterprise and that element of public interest is present, even though pipeline work is undertaken by an entity in private sector. 25. In this case, the fact remains that the execution of the Project started and several crores of rupees were already invested. Hence, the parameters applied by the Apex Court in the above cited ruling can be seen as existing in the case on hand also. Apart from that, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioners still have an opportunity of raising their objections with regard to the compensation. 26. Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User In Land), Act, 1962 deals with 'Compensation'. According to Sub- section (2) of Section 10, 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. 27. In view of Section 10(2), if the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to the petitioners, the amount of compensation shall be determined by the District Judge, on an application made by the petitioners, if advised. Therefore, the decision of learned Judge is final and this respondent shall comply with the same, if any direction is passed. 28. Hence, the action of the 2 nd respondent i.e. Competent Authority cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 & 2 are held in favour of the respondents and against the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 29. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 30. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.