Gujarat High Court
Bariya Chimanbhai Hirabhai vs Competent Authority For Gail (India) ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13936 of 2025
==========================================================
BARIYA CHIMANBHAI HIRABHAI & ORS.
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JA ADESHRA(107) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. The present petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Civil Court in exercise of power under Section-9 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act, 1962 [in short referred as 'The Act, 1962']. It seems that the proceedings under Section-9 of the Act, 1962 were instituted before the Civil Court by moving an application by Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the competent authority for making an inquiry into the encroachments over the land-in-question over which the Right of User had been acquired by virtue of the provisions under the Act 1962.
3. A perusal of Section-9 of the Act, 1962 indicates that on an application moved by the competent authority, the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the land acquiring Right of User is situated, is required to hold an inquiry and if it may deem fit after such inquiry, cause the structures/ building or encroachment be removed and the costs of removal of such structure is recoverable from the owner or occupier as if the costs were a decree made by the Court. Section-9 of the Act, 1962 relevant for our purposes is extracted herein under:-
"9. Restrictions regarding the use of land.--(1) The owner or occupier of the land with respect to which a declaration has been made under sub-section (1) of section 6, shall be entitled to use the land for the purpose for which such land was put to use immediately before the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3:
Provided that, such owner or occupier shall not after the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 6--Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
(i) construct any building or any other structure;
(ii) construct or excavate any tank, well, reservoir or dam; or
(iii) plant any tree, on that land.
(2) The owner or occupier of the land under which any pipelines has been laid shall not do any act or permit any act to be done which will or is likely to cause any damage in any manner whatsoever to the pipeline.1
[(3) Where the owner or occupier of the land with respect to which a declaration has been made under sub-section (1) of section 6,--
(a) constructs any building or any other structure, or
(b) constructs or excavates any well, tank, reservoir or dam, or
(c) plants any tree, on that land, the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situate may, on an application made to it by the competent authority and after holding such inquiry as it may deem fit, cause the building, structure, reservoir, dam or tree to be removed or the well or tank to be filled up, and the costs of such removal or filling up shall be recoverable from such owner or occupier in the same manner as if the order for the recovery of such costs were a decree made by that Court.]"
4. A perusal of the said provision indicates that with the Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined declaration made under Sub-section (1) of Section-6, the Right of User in the land specified in the notification under Section- 6(1) shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The restriction regarding the use of such land is provided in Section-9 which mandates that such land can be put to use by the owner or occupier as per the use immediately before the date of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section-3.
Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section-9 further puts a rider on any construction of any building or structure or excavation of any tank or well or planting any tree on such lands, Right of User in which has acquired, by the owner or occupier.
Sub-section (2) of Section-9 further provides that the owner or occupier of such land under which any pipeline has been laid is prohibited from doing any act or permit any act to be done which will or is likely to cause any damage in any manner whatsoever to the pipeline.
Sub-section (3) of Section-9 further provides that if any owner or occupier of the land with respect to which a Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined declaration has been made under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 makes any construction or excavates or plant any tree, the competent authority can approach the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situated, by moving an application causing removal of such construction, etc.
5. Taking note of these provisions of Section-9, we may deal with the arguments made by the learned advocate for the petitioners to assail the order passing by the District Judge under Section-9 of the Act, 1962. The first line of submission of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the application under Section-9, which has led to the passing of the order impugned had not been filed by the GAIL authority namely the acquiring body and being filed by the competent authority, it was not maintainable. This submission deserves rejection out-rightly by noticing the language employed in Sub-section (3) of Section-9 which permits the competent authority to make an application before the District Judge. The competent authority is defined in Section-2(a) of the Act, 1962 which means that:-
Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined "Section-2(a) "competent authority" means any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act 3[and different persons or authorities may be authorised to perform all or any of the functions of the competent authority under this Act in the same area or different areas specified in the notification;]"
6. A perusal of the application moved under Section-9 appended at Page-'46' of the paper-book makes it clear that the applicant made a categorical statement therein of being competent authority, an authorized person according to section-9 of the Act, 1962 to sign, verify and institute legal proceedings for and on behalf of GAIL (India) Limited. It is categorically stated therein that the application is signed, verified and filed by Mr. M.I. Malik, Mamlatdar who is appointed as Competent Authority by the Government of India under Section-2 of the Act, 1962 for GAIL (India) Limited for the State Government. The copy of the notification appointing the applicant as Competent Authority under Section-2(a) of the Act, 1962 issued by the State Government is appended as Annexure-'A' to the said application.
Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
7. Proceeding to the next submission of the learned advocate for the petitioners, the contention is that the construction in question which are sought to be demolished/removed pursuant to the order impugned were already existing on the plot-in-question prior to the notification issued under Section-3(1) of the Act, 1962. The reference has been made to Section-7 of the Act, 1962 to assert that the GAIL (India) Limited, the acquiring body has committed breach of Section-7 of the Act, 1962 in acquiring a land for the Right of User whereupon constructions were already existing. It is submitted that the respondent/ applicant has not been able to prove before the District Judge that the constructions were put up later to the completion of the process of acquisition so as to make out a case of inquiry under Section-9 of the Act, 1962.
8. To substantiate this submissions, reference has been made to Page-'37' of the paper-book, which is a report prepared by the Talati-cum-Mantri dated 18.07.2025 to assert that the constructions were existing at the time of acquisition. Pertinent is to note that the acquisition notifications under Section-3(1) and Section-6(1) of the Act, 1962 were published Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined on 02.02.2009 and 13.11.2009; respectively. Further reference has been made to the receipts of the house tax appended at Pages- '39' to '44' of the present petition.
9. Taking note of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners when we have gone through the judgment impugned passed under Section-9 of the Act, 1962, pertinent is to record that on the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties about the offending constructions, the District Court vide order dated 10.10.2023 had appointed Mamlatdar, Limkheda as Commissioner for local inspection. The Mamlatdar, Limkheda had prepared a panchnama in the presence of panchas and also drawn the map of the land on which disputed encroachment were made by the opponents therein/ petitioners herein.
10. Thereafter, learned advocate appearing for the applicants moved an application Exh.22 for reassignment of local inspection as earlier inspection was carried out without informing the applicants. The Court, thereafter, passed an order dated 14.08.2024 directing the Mamlatdar for local Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined inspection of the disputed land. The Mamlatdar, Revenue, Timba carried out the panchnama of the disputed land and Mr. J. J. Parmar, Senior surveyor had drawn the map of disputed land.
11. A categorical finding of fact has been returned by the District Court that on perusal of both the documents, it reveals that the opponents/ petitioners herein have made encroachment over the acquired Right of User land. The trial Court has recorded that the applicant - company acquired the Right of User of the land of the petitioners bearing revenue survey no.31 admeasuring 0-27-81 sq.mtrs. out of total land bearing survey no.31 and as per the restriction under Section- 9 of the Act, 1962, they cannot raise any construction over the acquired Right of User land i.e. 0-27-81 sq.mtrs. of revenue survey no.31, out of the total land in the ownership of the petitioners.
12. Pertinent is to note that though the petitioners had appeared before the District Court through an advocate but they have not produced any evidence to confront the stand of the applicant - company about the encroachment made by the Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined petitioners over the land over which the Right of User has been acquired.
13. There is no challenge to the local inspection reports submitted by the Mamlatdar, Limkheda and Mamlatdar, Revenue Timba upon local inspection issued by the District Court. In this scenario, we do not have any good ground to attach any infirmity to the order impugned. This petition invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the order passed by the Civil Court is hereby dismissed, being devoid of merits.
14. However, for any grievances of the petitioners left, with regard to the constructions beyond the portion or extent of the land over which the Right of User has been acquired with the declaration under Section -6(1) of the 1962 Act, it would be open for the petitioners to approach the competent authority namely of the acquiring body namely GAIL (India) Limited by moving a proper representation bringing on record the relevant documents to demonstrate that the existing constructions do not stand over the acquired piece of land. Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13936/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
15. In case such a representation is made, the same shall be dealt with by passing a reasoned speaking order strictly, in accordance with law. The dismissal of the present petition or the order passed by the Civil Court, subject matter of challenge herein will not come in the way of the petitioners in such an eventually.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 22:40:23 IST 2025