[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Nikulbhai Jethalal Patel vs Union Of India on 5 February, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1384/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1384 of 2026
==========================================================
NIKULBHAI JETHALAL PATEL & ANR.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P A MEHD(3489) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR SANJAY UDHWANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No.4
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 05/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. This is a wholly misconceived petition filed by two
persons claiming to be owners of land bearing revenue Survey
No.2608 (old Survey No.1284) admeasuring 14,265 sq.mtrs. of
Village-Dangarva, Taluka-Kadi, District-Mehsana.
2. The contention in the writ petition is that the proceedings
for acquisition of the land for laying of LPG pipeline was
conducted vide Notification dated 15.12.2020, published in the
Gadget of India and certain lands were acquired for laying LPG
pipelines for the project, namely, Kandla-Gorakhpur LPG
Pipeline Project. In a vague manner, it is stated that the land of
the petitioner was not included in the said Notification, and
hence it was not acquired. It is further contended in paragraph
3.3 of the writ petition that the land of the petitioners was not
part of the process of acquisition and no notice was issued
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1384/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
either to them or their predecessor-in-title, nor the
predecessor-in-title have responded or raised any objection to
the notification in the gadget.
3. In paragraph 3.4 of the writ petition, it is further
contended that it was only when the petitioners went to visit
their land for developing it for their business, then they came
to know that the pipeline was installed in the land in question.
The representations were made by the petitioners asking the
respondents to remove the pipeline since the land in question
was not subject matter of acquisition and thereafter the
present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
"6. The petitioner therefore pray:-
A. That this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents
to shift their pipeline out of the land of the petitioners.
B. That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ, order or direction directing that the land of the
petitioners be restored to its original form after removal of the
pipelines at the cost, risk and expense of the respondents.
C. For such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit
in the facts of the present case."
4. Taking note of the contentions made in the writ petition,
we raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for the
petitioner to answer, as to when according to the petitioners,
pipeline was laid, to which no answer could be given, because
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1384/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
of the averments made in paragraph 3.4 of the writ petition
that the petitioners were not aware of laying of pipeline. On a
further query made by the Court, it is intimated by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are purchasers
of the land in question.
5. However, the said fact has not been disclosed in the writ
petition. The date of the sale deed has not been mentioned
therein. The original owners of the land in question are not
impleaded herein.
6. The assertions with regard to the acquisition having been
made in the year 2020 or the land in question, not being part
of the Notification, is neither here nor there. From the above
noted facts, it is evident that the present petition has been
filed by concealment of material facts with misleading
statements. Hence it is liable to be dismissed outrightly being
misconceived. Dismissed as such.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
R.S. MALEK
