Gangadhar Karbhari Jadhav vs Union Of India Thr. Secretary ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 314 Bom

 Yugandhara Patil

                                                             23(1)WP-7115-2022.doc

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 7115 OF 2022

 Gangadhar Krabhari Jadhav                               ... Petitioner
      Versus
 Union of India and Anr.                                 ... Respondents

                                   ******

Mr. Pralhad Paranjape i/b Rahul Punjabi for the Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Shimpi for Respondent No. 1-UOI. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP and Ms. K.N. Solunke AGP for the Respondent-State.

Smt. Sabeena Mahadik a/w Pankaj Utharadhi and Magesh Avhale for Respondent No. 2.

******

CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND M.M.SATHAYE JJ.

                                     DATE    : 9th JANUARY, 2023
 P.C. :-

1. Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent No. 2 is taken on

record.

2. Respondent No. 1 would be at liberty to file the Affidavit-in-

Reply within one week from today without fail.

3. If Respondent No. 2 proposes to file additional reply,

Respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to file the same within two weeks

from today.

1 /4

Yugandhara Patil

23(1)WP-7115-2022.doc

4. Respondent No. 3 is also at liberty to file Affidavit-in-Reply

within two weeks from today with a copy to be served upon the

petitioner's advocate simultaneously.

5. Question that arises for consideration by this Court is whether

the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,

applies in any manner whatsoever and to what extent to the

acquisition of the right of user of the Petitioner in respect of the writ

property acquired under the provisions of Petroleum and Minerals

Pipeline Act, 1962. The authority below has rejected the arguments

of the Petitioner that Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

would not apply to the case of the Petitioner. It is held that the case

of Petitioner would be governed by Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline

Act, 1962.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon Section 2 of The

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, definition of land under

2 /4

Yugandhara Patil

23(1)WP-7115-2022.doc

Section 3(p)of 2013 Act, Schedule 4 of the 2013 Act, Section 105 of

the said Act-2013, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (Removal of

Difficulties) Order, 2015 and more particularly clause 2 thereof.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for Petitioner that in view of

said provisions, the said Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962

which falls in the Fourth Schedule of The Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013, the provisions of the Act would apply to

all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the

fourth schedule of the said Act, in view of the said order of 2015.

Mr. Paranajpe, learned counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance

on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Mahandi Coal

Field Ltd and Anr. Vs. Mathias Oram and others, 2022 SCC Online

SC 1508 in support of the submissions that, after considering the

entire provisions, Supreme Court has held that provisions of 2013

Act would apply in cases of acquisition under one of the said Act

described in fourth schedule of 2013 Act.

3 /4

Yugandhara Patil

23(1)WP-7115-2022.doc

8. It is case of the Petitioner that in view of the definition of land

under section 3(p) of the 2013 Act, the rights of the petitioner in the

land would be seriously prejudiced, even if right of user of the

Petitioner in the writ property under the provisions of Petroleum

and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962 is acquired though petitioner would

be entitled to compensation and other benefits under the provisions

of 2013 Act.

9. Matter requires consideration. In the Affidavit-in-Reply

proposed to be filed by the Respondents, this issue shall be dealt

with in detail.

10. Place the matter on supplementary board as 'Part heard' on 8 th

February 2023.

  [M.M.SATHAYE,J.]                                  [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]




                                                                            4 /4