Smt. Kamala Devi Gupta And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3270 Raj

(1 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1621/2014

LRs of Smt. Kamala Devi Gupta And Anr.

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2252/2014 Lala Ram

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2289/2014 Padama Ram

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2290/2014 Idan Singh

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2291/2014 Jaidev

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2322/2014 Bena Ram And Ors

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2324/2014 Khema Ram

(2 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2326/2014 Bhika Ram

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2327/2014 Om Prakash And Ors

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2418/2014 Sanwal Ram

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors.

                                                                ----Respondent



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. V.K. Agarwal
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit
                               Mr. Tribhuvan Singh
                               Mr. Amit Kumar for Mr. T.C. Sharma

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 25/02/2022 Pronounced on 03/03/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

(3 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

2. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming, in sum

and substance, the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humble prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

A. The impugned order dated 13.06.2013 (Ann.2) and the judgment dated 02.01.2014 (Aqnn. 7) passed by the Competent Authority may kindly be quashed and set aside and it may be held that the pipeline should not be installed at the newly porposed path which passess through the fileds of the farmers. B. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of petitioners."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Union of

India had taken the decision for the installation of a pipeline for

the transportation of petroleum natural gas from Mehsana to

Bhatinda, and that a notification to that effect was published

under Section 3 sub-section (1) of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users) Act, 1962. And that, the

proposed pipeline passed from certain lands in Jodhpur, which

belonged to the Jodhpur Development Authority (hereinafter

referred to as the 'J.D.A.') and therefore, the J.D.A. addressed a

communication vide letter dated 25.06.2013 to the competent

authority in the Gujarat State Petronet Ltd. requesting that the

particular Khasra through which the pipeline was proposed to pass

through be substituted with other khasras, as the proposed khasra

was to be used for the construction of a transport nagar, and an

undertaking to that effect was made before the Hon'ble Rajasthan

High Court and a scheme to the same effect has been created.

(4 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that

subsequently, order sheets were drawn, dated 05.06.2013 and

13.06.2013, wherby the request made by the J.D.A. to substitute

the proposed khasra for an alternate khasra due to the

aforementioned reasons, was discussed and accepted, and the

pipeline was shifted.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

said decision was taken arbitrarily and therefore, the petitioner,

after receiving an intimation of the said change in the path of the

pipeline, vide letter dated 17.12.2013, at Annexure-3, from the

competent authority, also received a notice to that effect, And

that, in light of the above, the petitioner submitted written

objections to the competent authority, after which the petitioner

was afforded an opportunity of hearing, at which time the

petitioner also submitted detailed written objections to the new

proposed path for the pipeline, some among them being that the

proposed path of the pipeline would traverse through the fields of

many farmers and adversely affect agriculture, and that the J.D.A.

had over 900 bighas land in the originally proposed khasra, and

the proposed pipeline could be relocated within the same Khasra

itself without adversely impacting the construction of the transport

nagar, and therefore shifting the khasra itself was unecessary and

arbitrary in nature.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

competent authority passed a judgment, dated 02.01.2014, at

Annexure - 7, by which the objections and contentions raised by

the petitioner were rejected, and that the competent authority did

not take into consideration the fact that another pipeline of HPCL

(5 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

was passing through therefore the proposed pipeline also could

conveniently be installed along the same path.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the

competent authority so appointed was a retired R.A.S. Officer and

would therefore not be a 'competent authority', and that

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew this Court's attention

to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Lalijabhai

Kadvabhai Savaliya & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2016

(9) SCJ 309 wherein the following was observed:

"It is thus clear that "Competent Authority" is given wide ranging powers Under Section 5 for considering the objections, Under Section 6 for making the report to the Central Government and Under Section 10 for determining compensation for damage/loss or injury under first part of Section and to determine the market value under the second part of the Section. By virtue of these powers, crucial rights of the persons interested in the land are bound to be affected. His orders and report would certainly deal with variety of civil rights of the interested persons and issues pertaining to compensation. At this stage, the observations of this Court in Trilok Sudhirbhai Pandya (Supra), in the context whether the person appointed as Competent Authority could be a person other than a public servant are quite eloquent:

17. The aforesaid reference to the various provisions of the Act shows that the competent authority has got vast powers, which affects the rights of persons interested in the land over which the pipeline is to be laid and on the reports of the competent authority, the Central Government and the State Government are to take decisions affecting the rights of persons interested in the land. Under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the competent authority does not merely determine the compensation at the first instance in accordance with the statutory Rules as has been contended by the learned Counsel for Respondent 4, but has to perform various other quasi-judicial functions which are normally performed by public servants whose pay allowances and other incidentals of service are met out of the public exchequer. If instead of public servants, a person is appointed whose pay,

(6 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

allowances and other incidentals are not paid out of the public exchequer but directly paid by a private employer such as Respondent 4, for whom the right of user is being acquired and by whom the compensation is payable, persons interested in the land will have reasonable grounds for assuming that such a competent authority, who is dependent on a private corporation for his salary, allowances, accommodation and transport allowances, will have a bias in favour of the private corporation."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further attempts to

draw a comparison between 'competent authority' under the

Section 2 (e) of the Metro Railway (Construction of Works)

Act, 1978 and 'competent authority' under the Act of 1962.

And that, the competent authority under Section 16 must also

be someone who is holding or has held a Judicial Office not

lower in rank than that of a Subordinate Judge or is a trained

legal mind. And that, if such a requirement is not read into

and not taken as an integral and essential qualification, then it

would amount to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

under Section 6 sub section (3) of the Act of 1962 any

notification issued under Section 6 sub-section (1) after the

expiry of a period of 1 year from the date of that notification,

it shall cease to have effect on expiration of that period.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance

on the following judgment rendered in State of Orissa Vs.

Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1269,

stating that the principles of natural justice must be followed

even in the case and enquiry was made and a decision was

passed by a Government Servant.

(7 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the

process of laying down the proposed pipeline has in fact not

begun, and therefore, factual aspect of irretrievable laying

down of pipeline is not made out, and neither has the

proposed transport nagar plan been produced before this

Court.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that

the process of substitution of the path of the pipeline was

done at the instance of the J.D.A. after informing the

Respondent no. 2 that the originally proposed khasra had

been allocated towards the construction of a transport nagar,

and that an undertaking for the same purpose was made

before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and a scheme for the

same was also created by the competent authority.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further

submits that the due process of issuing notice to the persons

through whose lands the proposed pipeline was to be laid

down was made, and that the concerned persons were

provided with an opportunity of hearing. And that, the

competent authority so appointed under the Act of 1962, after

hearing such concerned persons and taking into consideration

their objections, passed the impugned judgment dated

02.01.2014.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further

submits that all the procedure as laid down by law was

complied and the averments made by the petitioner, that the

shifting of the pipeline was arbitrary and highly violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India are baseless allegations.

(8 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

16. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further

submits that the contention of the petitioner that a pipeline of

the HPCL was already passing through Khasra No. 142, that a

representation to the same effect was in fact made by the

petitioner before the competent authority during the time of

hearing, and was taken into consideration.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 further

submits, with regard to the contention of the petitioner that

the competent authority was not a 'competent authority', that

the competent authority under Section 2 (a) of the Act of

1962 is vested with certain powers, including but not limited

to hearing of objections, declaration of Rights of Users,

decision regarding compensation and so on. And that, the

competent authority in the present case, was in fact a

'competent authority' as laid down under the Act of 1962, and

therefore, claims of the petitioner that the competent

authority was in fact not a proper authority, is wrong.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, the J.D.A.,

submits that the land in originally proposed khasra was found

to be reserved for the purpose of construction of a Transport

Nagar and Automobile Market Scheme by the respondent no.

4 and that revision of the path of the proposed pipeline at this

stage would be detrimental to the public interest at large. And

that, doing so would occupy majority of the vacant lands

allocated for the aforementioned purpose, due to other

reasons of security and maintenance of the pipeline.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 further

submits that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences

(9 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

(AIIMS) has also started functioning at the old transport

nagar, and it has therefore become more essential to shift the

transport nagar to the khasra in question.

20. Heard learned counsel for both the parties as well as

perused the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law

cited at the Bar.

21. This Court observes that the impugned order and

judgment, dated 13.06.2013 and 02.01.2014 respectively,

have been passed after issuing the concerned persons, upon

whose land the proposed pipeline was initially passing

through, and that an opportunity of hearing was afforded to

the concerned persons and their objections and written

submissions were taken on record. And that, the contentions

raised by the petitioner, with regard to an existing pipeline of

the HPCL, was brought to the notice of the concerned

authority and that the same was given due consideration

before passed the impugned judgment.

22. This Court further observes that the contention of the

petitioner that the competent authority is not in fact a

'competent authority' is not accepted by this Court, by virtue

of the fact that the competent authority was duly appointed

under the Act of 1962, and the exercise of his powers in the

present case have been exercised in accordance with those

conferred upon him under the Act of 1962.

23. This Court observes that the original khasra allocated

towards the establishment of the pipeline was changed at the

request of the J.D.A., as is reflected from the record, and with

good reason, that the said khasra was already reserved for

(10 of 10) [CW-1621/2014]

the Transport Nagar and Automobile Market Scheme and that

a scheme to that effect was prepared. And that the land

wherein the old transport nagar was situated is being utlisied

by the AIIMS and therefore, any revision of the plan at this

stage would could inordinate delay and inconvenience to the

public at large.

24. This Court further observes, that the proposed pipeline

has been shifted from the originally allocated khasra with

good reason and that the respondent. no. 2 acted at the

behest and request of respondent no. 4. And that the manner

in which the same was done was in accordance with the law

as laid down in the Act of 1962.

25. This Court perused the judgments cited at the bar by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, but finds that they do not

apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

26. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not

find it a fit case so as to warrant any interference under the

writ jurisdiction by this Court.

27. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

46-55-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)