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
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--
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.
[(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
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
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:-
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
