Tokala Manikantham vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 830 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

                    Writ Petition No.5913 of 2020
ORDER:

The petitioners pray for a writ of mandamus declaring the land

acquisition proceedings initiated under the Notification S.O.No.2098

dated 06.09.2017 issued under Section 3(1) and the Declaration

S.O.No.637 dated 11.04.2018 issued under Section 6(1) of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in

Land) Act, 1962 (for short, 'the PMP Act') in so far as the lands of the

petitioners in Sy.No.126/7 of Loya and Sy.No.153/3 of Munagapadu

villages of G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary

and violative of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of

India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders

as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioners' case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioners are the farmers owning agricultural lands

in Loya and Munagapadu Villages. The petitioners 1 & 2 are the

husband and wife and own an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.126/7

of Loya village and the 3rd petitioner own an extent of Ac.1.05 cents

in Sy.No.153/3 of Munagapadu Village. Whereas the petitioners 4 &

5 being husband and wife own an extent of Ac.0.90 cents and Ac.1.07

cents respectively in Sy.No.153/3 of Munagapadu Village and they

are cultivating respective lands and eking out their livelihood. While

so, of late, the officials of 2nd respondent Corporation visited the lands

and demanded them to deliver possession of the lands for the purpose UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

of laying the pipeline running from Paradeep in Orissa to Hyderabad

called Paradeep-Hyderabad Pipeline Project. There were cotton and

red gram crops in the petitioners' lands at that time. The officials

gave copies of the notifications under Sections 3(1) and 6 of the PMP

Act to the petitioners, on perusal of which the petitioners came to

know that the respondents have issued a notification under Section

3(1) of the PMP Act on 06.09.2017 to acquire the lands for laying the

aforesaid pipeline. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was

also seems to have issued on 16.04.2018. However, no notices

whatsoever were issued to the petitioners. So far as the petitioners 1

& 2 are concerned, there was no declaration under Section 6 of the

PMP Act, but the respondents want to take possession of their lands

even without publishing the declaration under Section 6 of the PMP

Act. Hence, the action of the respondents in attempting to take

possession of the lands without following the mandatory procedure is

illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(b) On further enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the

Paradeep-Hyderabad Pipeline project was initiated in the year 2016

and the respondents have fixed Peg markings which fall under the

project pipeline alignment. In the year 2016, the lands of the

petitioners did not fall in the pipeline alignment. The land acquisition

proceedings were completed in all the Mandals except G.Konduru

Mandal. At that time, due to interference of vested interests, the land

acquisition proceedings in G.Konduru Mandal were stopped for the

purpose of changing the alignment of the pipeline to suit the needs of UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

the vested interest and to exclude their lands from the alignment.

Originally the pipeline alignment was going in straight line between

G.Konduru Village and IOCL Terminal at Kavuluru Village.

However, after changing the pipeline alignment, Section 3(1)

notification under the PMP Act was issued on 06.09.2017 proposing

to acquire the lands of the petitioners and some others with changed

alignment. The changed alignment is very much expensive as it took

a long deep curve making the project much costlier. In the process,

the respondents have given a go by to the mandatory procedure

contemplated under the PMP Act and the PMP Rules. A duty is cast

on the 2nd respondent, who is the competent authority, to cause public

notification inviting the objections and consider the same and pass

appropriate order. However, nothing was done in that regard. Hence,

the impugned notification is null and void. Consequently the action of

the respondents in proposing to take possession of the lands is also

illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to

be set aside.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Respondent No.2 filed counter inter alia contending thus:

(a) For transportation of petroleum products, Paradeep-

Hyderabad pipeline project was envisaged by the Ministry of

Petroleum & Natural Gas, GOI. Notification in S.O.No.2098 dated

06.09.2017 and S.O.No.813 dated 15.05.2018 were published under

Section 3 of the PMP Act declaring the intention to acquire the Right

of User in the lands specified in the schedule appended to the UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

notification covering 14 villages in G.Konduru Mandal of Krishna

District. 2nd respondent was appointed as competent authority to hear

objections from the owners of the subject lands and to award suitable

compensation.

(b) Petitioners' lands were identified for acquiring the right of

use by GOI. The petitioners intentionally opposed the process

initiated by 2nd respondent on one or other pretext and finally by filing

this writ petition.

(c) The 2nd respondent issued notices through registered post

calling upon the petitioners to file their objections. However, they did

not file any objections within the stipulated time. As per revenue

records, names of the petitioners 1 & 2 was mutated as owners for an

extent of Ac.0.80 cents in R.S.No.126/7 in revenue records only on

01.01.2018, whereas 3(1) notification was published on 06.09.2017

and notice was issued to (i) Chennuru Samba Durga Rao, father of 2nd

petitioner, whose name reflected in revenue records as on 08.12.2017.

He refused to take notice which was returned unserved. As there was

no objections received from the petitioners, the Ministry of Petroleum

and Natural Gas issued Gazette notification under Section 6(1) of the

PMP Act vide S.O.No.637 dated 11.04.2018 and S.O.No.814 dated

15.05.2018 to acquire the identified agricultural lands in the Loya and

Munagapadu villages. Section 6(1) notification was published in

Gazette of India and also in government offices where the affected

lands are situated on 24.05.2018 and 25.06.2018 in the prescribed

manner. The individual 6(1) notices were affixed to the house doors UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

of the petitioners as stipulated under Rule 8(3) of the PMP Rules.

Thus, due procedure was strictly adhered to.

(d) Denying the petition averments that the land acquisition

proceedings were started in the year 2016 itself and that as per the peg

markings the lands of the petitioners were not originally included for

acquisition, it is contended that the competent authority was appointed

as per the extraordinary Gazette notification No.45 dated 06.01.2017

by the GOI and from that date only the said authority initiated land

acquisition proceedings. In fact, Right of User (ROU) proceedings in

respect of G.Konduru Mandal were published as per Section 3(1) in

the month of September 2017. Hence, the averment that acquisition

proceedings commenced in the year 2016 is not correct. The alleged

peg markings, if any, are not indicative of final alignment before

publication of 3(1) notification and the allegation that the petitioners'

lands were originally not part of acquisition and subsequently the

alignment was changed at the instance of influential persons is also

not true.

(e) It is further contended that the substance of Section 3(1)

notification pertaining to Loya and Munagapadu villages has been

published in all government offices on various dates viz., 06.11.2017,

08.11.2017, 10.11.2017 & 13.11.2017. The Loya village is de-

populated and the farmers are residing in various places. As the

petitioners refused to take individual 3(1) notices, they were sent

through registered post which were returned unserved.

UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

(f) It is only Right of Use (ROU) is acquired under the Act and

not the land itself. After laying the pipeline, the lands will be handed

over to the respective farmers in the original farm which they can use.

For acquiring ROU, compensation will be paid as per the provisions

of the PMP Act. The allegations that notices were not served to the

petitioners is false. In fact, the petitioners refused to receive the

individual section 3(1) notices, the same were sent to all the land

holders, whose names appeared in the revenue records at that time and

they were returned duly unserved. Further, after publication of

Section 6(1) gazette, as the petitioners refused to take the individual

notices, they were affixed to the doors of the petitioners. The entire

process has been done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the

PMP Act. The petitioners with an ulterior motive filed the writ

petition to avoid the laying of pipelines through their lands. Hence,

the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. The petitioners filed reply denying the counter allegations.

They affirmed that notices were not served on them and therefore,

they could not file their objections to the notification dated

06.09.2017.

5. Heard Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the 1st respondent,

and Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned standing counsel for the 2nd

respondent.

UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

6. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for

petitioners is that for Paradeep-Hyderabad Pipeline Project, initially

peg markings were made in the year 2016, whereunder the lands of

the petitioners were not a part of right of user/acquisition. However,

on the pressure of influential persons, the alignment of the pipeline

was changed and the lands of the petitioners were included. However,

no notices either under Section 3 or 6 of the PMP Act were issued to

the petitioners at the relevant time to afford an opportunity to them to

submit their objections. Since the mandatory procedure was not

followed, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated by the violation of

the procedure. He placed reliance on Kulsum R.Nandiadwala v.

State of Maharashtra1 and Narinderjit Singh v. The State of U.P.2.

7. Per contra, Sri G.Ram Gopal, Standing Counsel for 2nd

respondent, would argue that there was no procedural deviation in the

matter of acquisition of right of user and in fact, notice was issued on

Chennuru Samba Durga Rao, father of 2nd petitioner, whose name was

reflected in revenue records and as he refused to take notice, it was

returned unserved and therefore, notification under Section 6(1) of the

PMP Act was issued and the individual 6(1) notices were affixed to

the house doors of the petitioners and therefore, due process was

strictly adhered to. He denied the allegation that during the initial peg

markings in the year 2016, the petitioners' lands were not included

and subsequently they were included due to the change of alignment

AIR 2012 SC 2718

AIR 1973 SC 552 UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

on the pressure of some influential persons. He vehemently argued

that notification under Section 3(1) was published only in the year

2017 and hence, the question of making peg markings in the year

2016 does not arise. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

8. The point for consideration is whether the notification

S.O.No.2098 dated 6.9.2017 under Section 3(1) and the consequential

declaration in S.O.No.637 dated 11.4.2018 under Section 6(1) of the

PMP Act issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as the lands of the

petitioners are concerned, liable to be set aside for procedural

violation of the Act and the Rules thereunder?

9. POINT: Before deciding the above point, it is apposite to

mention here that the common order dated 7.12.2020 in

W.P.No.13439 and 14713 of 2020 passed by this Court also relates to

the acquisition of right to user for the same Paradeep-Hyderabad

pipeline project being challenged. The lands of the petitioners therein

situated in Narava village, Pendurthi mandal of Visakhapatnam

District. In that context, this Court, in that judgment, has extensively

dealt with the objectives and provisions of the PMP Act and the PMP

Rules and also discussed the judicial pronouncements on the validity

of provisions of the PMP Act.

As discussed in the above decision, the PMP Act was brought

forth with the main object of transporting the petroleum and minerals

through pipelines to different localities. For this purpose it has

become necessary to lay petroleum pipelines in the country to serve as UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

a cheap means of transportation and distribution of petroleum and its

products. Though the land could be acquired outright for laying such

pipelines under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however the Government

thought that the procedure for such acquisition was plodding besides

costlier. Further, since the pipelines were to be laid in the subsoil,

outright acquisition was not essential and hence, mere right of user in

the land would be suffice.

10. In the said decision, the provisions of the Act and Rules were

also discussed. Section 1 of the PMP Act lays down that at the first

instance the Act was made applicable to West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar

Pradesh and Gujarat and the Union Territory of Delhi and later by

virtue of notification in SO.987 dated 10.03.1964 Gazette of India

Pt.II, it was made applicable to the States of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh

and Madras with effect from 15.03.1964. Thus, there is no demur that

the subject Act is applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

(a) Section 2 deals with the definitions of some of the relevant

provisions.

(b) Section 3 deals with the publication of notification for

acquisition. It primarily deals with the issuance of notification by the

Central Government declaring its intention to acquire the right of user

in respect of any land under which it intends to lay pipeline for

transport of petroleum or any mineral from one locality to another

locality. The pipelines may be laid by the Central Government or by

the State Government or a Corporation. Sub-section (2) says that UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description

of the land whereas sub-section (3) lays down that the competent

authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published

at such places in such manner as may be prescribed.

(c) Under Section 4 it is lawful for any authorised person to

enter upon and cause survey in respect of such land.

(d) Under Section 5, any person interested in the land can object

to the laying of pipelines under his land. The objections so preferred

are to be dealt with by the Competent authority, who would then make

a report for the decision of the Central Government.

(e) Then, Section 6 says, if the Central Government is satisfied

that the land is required for laying any pipeline for transport of

petroleum or any mineral, it may declare so by notification in the

official gazette, whereafter the right of user shall vest absolutely in the

Central Government or the State Government or the Corporation as

directed. After vesting of right to user, it is lawful for the authorities

to lay pipelines, however, by following the exceptions mentioned in

Section 7.

(f) Section 9 imposes certain restrictions on the use of the land

by the owner, after a declaration has been made under Section 6 (1).

(g) Section 10 lays down principles for award of compensation

against the acquisition of right of user of the land and also in respect

of any damage or loss sustained by any person interested in the land.

UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

11. At this juncture, it is apposite to peruse some of the PMP Rules

which are intertwined with Section 3.

While under Section 3(3) the competent authority shall cause

the substance of the notification to be published, Rule 3 prescribes

procedure for publication of notification.

a) Rule 3(2) lays down that the substance of the notification

shall be published:

(i) by beat of drum in the neighbourhood of the land in which the right of user is acquired; and

(ii) by affixing a copy thereof in a conspicuous place in the locality in which the land is situated.

(b) Further, sub-rule (3) lays down that copy of such

notification shall be served in the manner prescribed in Rule 8, on the

owner of the land whose name is shown in the relevant revenue

records or on the person, who, in the opinion of the competent

authority is the owner of or interested in such land.

(c) Then Rule 8 postulates that any notice or letter issued or

order passed may be served on the person for whom it is intended or

to any adult member of his family by sending it by registered post

acknowledgment due. The serving officer shall require the signature

of the person to whom the copy is so delivered to an acknowledgment

of service endorsed on the original.

UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

(d) Thus a conjunctive study of Section 3 and Rules 3 and 8

tells us that the copy of notification issued under Section 3(1) should

be served on the owner or the person interested in the land acquired

for right to user.

The above are the relevant provisions of the PMP Act and

Rules.

12. Then, validity of provisions of PMP Act are concerned, in

Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and

Ors.3 the validity of provisions of PMP Act were in challenge before

the Apex Court. It was contended:

(i) Though under the PMP Act, right of user simpliciter was

acquired in respect of notified lands, however, practically, the owner

stands deprived of their proprietary interest and enjoyment in the land,

as Section 9 freezes the right to make any constructions therein.

Hence, the acquisition of right of user is nothing but acquisition of the

property itself.

(ii) In the name of acquisition of right of user, the PMP Act

bypasses the due process of law contemplated under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1984.

(iii) The expression "Corporation" appearing in Section 2(b)

ought to be construed to confine to public sector corporations and the

PMP Act not to be invoked in favour of private companies.

MANU/SC/1176/2016=AIR 2016 SC 4715, (2016) 9 SCC 791 UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

(iv) No qualifications were prescribed for the competent

authority who is vested with important functions, like hearing of

objections, making report to the Central Government and determining

the quantum of compensation at the first instance, unlike in the pari

materia enactments.

(v) The Act or Rules did not prescribe the period within which

compensation and damages to be deposited or paid and no guidelines

were laid down that the pipelines should be laid in such a way as to

cause least amount of damage or loss to the occupiers.

13. The Apex Court, considering the provisions of the Act, has

observed that what is acquired is the right of user in the land in

question for laying pipelines in the subsoil and not the land itself. On

perusal of Section 7, the Apex Court observed that only those lands

which are either lying fallow or are being put to agricultural use can

be considered for acquisition but not those lands which, immediately

before the date of notification under Section 3(1), were used for

residential purposes or those on which there is a permanent structure

in existence or those which are appurtenant to a dwelling house.

Referring to Section 9, the Apex Court observed that except making

any constructions after issuance of Section 6(1) notification, the

owner can use the land for the same purpose for which it was earlier

being used. The Apex Court thus concluded that what is taken over is

only right of user i.e., to lay pipelines in the subsoil of the land in

question but neither the ownership in the land nor the right of UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

occupation or possession is taken away permanently. The Apex Court

described the PMP Act as a special enactment designed to achieve the

purpose of laying pipeline as an efficient means of transportation and

with that idea, only right of user in the land is acquired.

(a) The Apex Court observed, though no time limit is

prescribed for deposit of compensation and damages, it is expected of

the concerned authorities to determine and deposit compensation

within reasonable time. It was further observed, the definition

"Corporation" was wide enough to take within its sweep, entities in

private sector as well. Regarding Competent authority, the Apex

Court expressed its view that the said Authority must be some one

who is holding or held a judicial office not lower in rank than that of a

subordinate Judge or is a trained legal mind.

14. From the above jurisprudence, it is obvious 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 the property rights which inher in

the owner/occupier and such acquisition of right of user should be

compensated under Section 10 of the PMP Act. It is important to

know, upon the publication of the declaration of notification under

Section 6, the right of user in the land for laying pipelines shall vest

absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.

Thus, vesting of right of user is proclaimed in clear terms. The

authorities shall invariably follow the provisions of the PMP Act UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

scrupulously and meticulously since the valuable right of the public in

their respective properties is involved.

15. Be that it may, the common order dated 22.10.2020 in

W.P.Nos.682, 10069 and 11829 of 2019 also relates to the challenge

to the acquisition of right of user of their lands for laying pipeline for

Paradeep-Hyderabad pipeline project. In the said judgment also, the

learned single Judge has exhaustively dealt with relevant issues

touching the functions of the competent authority, his responsibility to

pass reasoned order by considering the objections of the owners of the

lands etc. Learned Judge has also incidentally answered the question

whether the provisions of Section 5 of the PMP Act are akin to

Section 5(A) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. At this juncture, it is

pertinent to ruminate the important observations and findings in the

said decision which are thus:

 The provisions of Section 5 and 6 of PMP Act would categorically show that the legislature attached much importance to the objections of the owner of the land in respect of acquisition of right of user in land, obviously, became the owner would be deprived of using his land, be partially. Therefore, the competent authority has to afford an opportunity of hearing to the land owner. It is like providing leeway to persuade the competent authority to drop the acquisition proceedings.

 The functions of competent authority are quasi judicial in nature, having regard to the fact that he is required to receive the objections, hear the objector, pass an order and submit a report containing his recommendations on the objections.

UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

 The non-consideration of the objections is as good as not hearing the same. The requirement of passing a reasoned order though not a comprehensive one by meeting the objections, would enable the Central Government to examine the recommendations/report of the competent authority/2nd respondent and to take a final decision before issuance of declaration under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act as to whether the proposal of acquisition is to be dropped or modified.

 The provisions under Section 5 of the PMP Act are akin to Section 5(A) of Land Acquisition Act.

With the jurisprudence percolated from the above judgments, it

has now to be seen whether the provisions of the Act and Rules were

duly followed in letter and spirit in acquiring the right of user.

16. As already stated supra, the prime contentions of the petitioners

is that petitioners 1 and 2 who are the husband and wife own Ac.0.80

cents in S.No.126/7 of Loya village; 3rd petitioner owns Ac.1.05 cents

in S.No.153/3 of Munagapadu village; and petitioners 4 and 5 being

husband and wife own Ac.0.90 cents and Ac.1.07 cents in S.No.153/3

of Munagapadu village and without serving the copy of Section 3(1)

notification as per the procedure laid under Rule 3 r/w Rule 8 of the

Rules on the petitioners to call for their objections, the 2nd respondent

proceeded with the acquisition proceedings and therefore, such

proceedings are illegal, null and void. Per contra, the contention of

the 2nd respondent is that as per the records, as on the date of issuance

of Section 3(1) notification (published on 6.9.2017), the lands as per

the revenue records were in the name of one Chinnuru Samba Durga UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

Rao (father of the 2nd petitioner) and therefore, notice was issued to

him but he refused to take the notice which was returned unserved.

The names of petitioners 1 and 2 were mutated as land owners for

Ac.0.80 cents in R.S.No.126/7 only with effect from 01.01.2018.

Since there were no objections, the Competent Authority furnished his

report and the Central Government issued gazette notification under

Section 6(1) of the PMP Act to acquire the agricultural lands in Loya

and Munagapadu villages. The notification has been published in

gazette of India and exhibited on all the Government offices where the

affected lands are situated.

17. With reference to the above respective contentions, a perusal of

notification vide S.O.No.2098 dated 06.09.2017 (a copy of which is

filed by both parties) shows that the Central Government requisitioned

land in S.No.153/3 of Munagapadu village, G.Konduru Mandal in an

extent of 72 square meters in which petitioners 3 to 5 are interested

and S.No.126/7 of Loya Village in G.Konduru Mandal in an extent of

60 square meters in which petitioners 1 and 2 are interested.

18. Now coming to the contention of petitioners 1 and 2, they claim

to be the owners of Ac.0.80 cents of land in S.No.126/7 of Loya

village and the notification under Section 3 was not served on them.

Whereas the contention of 2nd respondent is that as on the date of

section 3(1) notification i.e., 6.9.2017 one Chennuru Samba Durga

Rao, father of 2nd respondent, was the owner as per revenue records

and hence, copy of notification was served on him but he refused and UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

hence it was returned. In this context, a perusal of a copy of Pattadar

Passbook (Khata No.418 of Loya village, G.Konduru mandal) shows

that Ac.0.50 cents of dry land in S.No.126/7 is recorded in their name

as per order No.418/2017 dated 01.01.2018. Whereas the copy of the

title deed produced by them would show that the said Ac.0.50 cents of

dry land was obtained by them by way of gift deed. The 2nd petitioner

namely Smt. Tokala Sivalakhsmi also produced copy of another

Pattadar Passbook (Khata No.419 of Loya village, G.Konduru

Mandal) which shows that Ac.0.30 cents of dry land in S.No.126/7 is

recorded in her name as per order No.419/2017 dated 01.01.2018.

The copy of title deed shows that said land was obtained by her by

way of gift deed. Thus in essence, petitioners 1 and 2 obtained

Ac.0.80 cents of dry land in Loya village by way of gift deed,

probably obtained from the father of the 2nd petitioner and their names

were mutated in the revenue records with effect from 01.01.2018.

Admittedly Section 3(1) notification was issued on 06.09.2017. As on

that date, since the land was in the name of Chennuru Samba

Durgarao, notice was issued on him. The 2nd respondent filed copies

of the postal receipt and returned postal cover which contains the

postal endorsement that the addressee refused. Therefore, the

contention of the petitioners that copies of the notification were not

served on them cannot be accepted.

19. So far as petitioners 3 to 5 are concerned, the 2nd respondent

produced copies of returned registered postal covers which contain an

endorsement that since the addressees were residing in Gaddu UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

Manugu village, the registered letters were redirected to G.Konduru.

Further, the copies of notices dated 18.09.2019 would show that they

were sent to respondents 4 and 5 and as they refused to receive, the

same were affixed to the door. Thus on a conspectus of facts and

documents, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that

they were not served with the copies of Section 3(1) notification so as

to submit their objections. The other contention of the petitioners that

the original alignment as per peg marks did not include their land and

later on the pressure of some influential persons, alignment was

changed to include the lands of the petitioners also do not hold much

water for the reason that the alignment of pipeline will be approved by

the Central Government taking into consideration various aspects.

Admittedly, the project is at the verge of completion except the stretch

where the petitioners' lands are located. Having regard to the

involvement of larger public interest, as the avowed object of the

project is to transport petroleum and other related minerals from

Paradeep to Hyderabad, the notifications under Section 3 and 6 of the

PMP Act cannot be set aside. The decision cited by them will not

improve their case. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to only

compensation if they were not already paid.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction

that the petitioners in this writ petition, if already not paid, shall be

paid compensation under Section 10 of the PMP Act on the market

value of the land as on the date of the writ petition to be determined

by the Competent Authority. The entire exercise shall be completed UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J cbs/mva UDPR,J WP No.5913 of 2020

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

Writ Petition No.5913 of 2020

15th February, 2021 cbs/mva