Kerala High Court
Divakaran Nair vs State Of Kerala on 16 February, 2021
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.5966 OF 2020(U)
PETITIONER:
DIVAKARAN NAIR,
AGED 79 YEARS,
S/O SUBHADRAMMA, EDAYATH, MALAYIDAMTHURUTH,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM-683 561.
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-682 022.
* 4 KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED (KSPPL),
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, 2ND FLOOR KARUN ENCLAVE, S.N. JUNCTION,
OPPOSITE UNION BANK, THRIPUNITHARA, KOCHIN-682 301.
(CORRECTED)
* THE ADDRESS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS,
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED(KSPPL)
ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-683 022.
AS PER ORDER DATED 16.10.2020 IN IA NO.1/20 IN W.P.
(C) 5966/2020.
5 THE TAHASILDAR,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 550.
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 2
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683 562.
** 7 ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED
KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED(KSPPL),
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALAYIL
MAJESTY BUILDING, ROOM NO.174 G, SECOND FLOOR,
NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, REFINARY ROAD,
THRIPUNITHARA, ERNAKULAM-682 301
** ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
16.10.2020 IN IA NO.2/2020 IN W.P.(C) 5966/2020.
R4, R7 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R4, R7 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).6033/2020(D), WP(C).6061/2020(G),
WP(C).10996/2020(Y), WP(C).22068/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.6033 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER:
ANNAKKUTTY VARGHESE
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O M. P.VARGHESE, MADAPPILLY HOUSE,
MALAYIDAMTHURUTH.P.O, BAVAPPADY,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM-683561.
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE,
KAKKANAD-682022.
4 KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED(KSPPL),
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, 2ND FLOOR KARUN ENCLAVE,
S.N.JUNCTION, OPPOSITE UNION BANK,
THRIPUNITHARA, KOCHIN-682301.
(CORRECTED)
* THE ADDRESS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED
AS,
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED(KSPPL)
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 4
ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-683 022.
AS PER ORDER DATED 16.2.2021 IN IA NO.1/20 IN W.P.
(C) 6033/2020.
5 THE TAHASILDAR,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683550.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683562.
7 *ADDL R7 IMPLEADED
KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED (KSPPL),
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALAYIL
MAJESTY BUILDING, ROOM NO.174 G, SECOND FLOOR, NEAR
RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, REFINERY ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 301.
ADDL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.2.2021
IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2020 IN WPC NO.6033 OF 2020
R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R4 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SMT SHEEJA C.S, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5966/2020(U), WP(C).6061/2020(G),
WP(C).10996/2020(Y), WP(C).22068/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.6061 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER:
GEORGE K.P.
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. PATHROSE K.V., KADAPARAMBIL, MALAYIDAMTHURUTH,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKLAM-683561.
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-682022.
4 KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED(KSPPL)
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, 2ND FLOOR KARUN ENCLAVE, S.N. JUNCTION,
OPPOSITE UNION BANK, THRIPUNITHARA, KOCHIN-682301.
(CORRECTED)
* THE ADDRESS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED
AS,
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED(KSPPL)
ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-683 022.
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 6
AS PER ORDER DATED 16.2.2021 IN IA NO.1/20 IN W.P.
(C) 6061/2020.
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683550.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683562.
7 ADDL R7 IMPLEADED
KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED (KSPPL),
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALAYIL
MAJESTY BUILDING, ROOM NO.174 G, SECOND FLOOR, NEAR
RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, REFINERY ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 301.
ADDL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.2.2021
IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2020 IN WPC NO.6033 OF 2020
R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R4 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SMT SHEEJA C.S, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5966/2020(U), WP(C).6033/2020(D),
WP(C).10996/2020(Y), WP(C).22068/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.10996 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONER:
MRS. SHAKEENA
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O. A B ABDUL AZEEZ, ANGILMOOTTIL HOUSE,
N A D P.O., NOCHIMA, ALUVA, EDATHALA NORTH,
ERNAKULAM-683 561.
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-682 022.
4 KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED (KSPPL)
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, 2ND FLOOR KARUN ENCLAVE, S.N. JUNCTION,
OPPOSITE UNION BANK, THRIPUNITHURA, KOCHIN-682 301.
*(CORRECTED),
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI
SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED (KSPPL), ERNAKULAM
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU - 682 022.
ADDRESS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS PER
ORDER DATED 16.10.2020 IN I.A.1/2020 IN
WP(C).10996/2020
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 8
5 THE TAHASILDAR
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 550.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683 562.
7 *ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED
KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED (KSPPL),
REPRESENTED BYTHE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MALAYIL MAJESTY BUILDING, ROOM NO.174 G, SECOND
FLOOR, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE, REFINERY ROAD,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM - 682 301.
*ADDITIONAL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
16.10.2020 IN I.A.2/2020 IN WP(C).10996/2020.
R4, R7 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R4, R7 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SMT MABLE C KURIEN, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5966/2020(U), WP(C).6033/2020(D),
WP(C).6061/2020(G), WP(C).22068/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 27TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.22068 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONERS:
1 KHADEEJA MEETHIYAN
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O(LATE) MR.MEETHIYAN.M.A, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE,
AMBUNADU,EDATHALA.P.O,ERNAKULAM-683561.
2 NASEEMA.M.M,
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O(LATE) MR.MEETHIYAN.M.A, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE,
AMBUNADU, EDATHALA.P.O,
ERNAKULAM-683561.
3 SALIM.M.M,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O (LATE )MR.MEETHIYAN.M.A, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE,
AMBUNADU, EDATHALA.P.O,
ERNAKULAM-683561.
4 SHAMEENA.M.M,
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O(LATE)MR.MEETHIYAN.M.A, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE,
AMBUNADU, EDATHALA.P.O,
ERNAKULAM-683561.
5 SHAMEER.M.M,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O (LATE)MR.MEETHIYAN.M.A,MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE,
AMBUNADU, EDATHALA.P.O,
ERNAKULAM-683561.
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 10
SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE,
KAKKANAD-682022.
4 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED
(KSPPL),ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-682022.
5 THE TAHASILDAR,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683550.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683562.
7 KOCHI SELAM PIPE LINE PRIVATE LIMITED(KSPPL),
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,MALAYIL
MAJESTY BUILDING,ROOM NO.174 G,SECOND FLOOR,NEAR
RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE,REFINERY ROAD,
THRIPUNITHARA,ERNAKULAM-682301.
R4, R7 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R7 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
SMT.MABLE C KURIEN, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).5966/2020(U), WP(C).6033/2020(D),
WP(C).6061/2020(G), WP(C).10996/2020(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 11
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).5966/2020, WP(C).6033/2020, WP(C).6061/2020, WP(C).10996/2020, WP(C).22068/2020] The Kochi-Salem Pipeline Pvt. Ltd. is a Company formed for the purpose of laying a pipeline for transportation of LPG from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), Kochi Refinery and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) Puthuvypeen to BPCL/IOCL LPG plants situated at Udayamperoor, Palakkad, Coimbatore, Erode and Salem under authorisation granted by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board. For the purpose of laying the pipeline, 'right of user' in the immovable property had to be acquired. In view of the fact that the drawing of the pipeline was in the public interest and for the transportation of petroleum from one locality to the other, the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 was invoked by the Central Government. After obtaining Environmental Clearance as well as clearance from the Pollution Control Board and the statutory authorities, the competent authority forwarded the draft notification for acquisition of properties scheduled thereunder under Section 3 of the Act. After following the procedure under Section 5 of the Act, the Central Government in WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 12 exercise of powers under Section 6(1) of the Act issued a notification declaring that the right of user in the land was required for laying the pipeline and that the property instead of vesting in the Central Government shall vest with the KSPPL. The petitioners being the owners of the land through which the pipeline is intended to be drawn have approached this Court being aggrieved by the proposal for drawal of lines without considering the objections raised by the landowners.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions contend that when they received information about the prospects of acquiring the land, they approached the 3rd respondent and raised their objections. The petitioners were summoned for a hearing and they had appeared before the competent authority. Though their contentions were all heard by the 4th respondent, no orders have been issued till date. Instead, on 11.1.2020, the officers of the respondents had come to the petitioner's property for the purpose of commencing the work. It is in the afore circumstances that these writ petitions have been filed seeking the following reliefs.
"i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider the objections of the landowners and re structure the plan as it not cause harm to the petitioner as well as the other land owners. WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 13
ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 4th respondent to communicate the result of the hearing conducted on 27.03.2019 with all details of reasons.
iii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider the objections of the lands owner and re structure the plan as it not cause harm to the petitioner.
iv) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to stop all further proceeding till considering the objections of the lands owners on merit and taking a decision after proper enquiry so as to protect the interest of justice from the part of the land owners."
3. The additional 7th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. It is contended that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1962. It is further contended that the selection of the route was done scientifically after elaborate scrutiny at all levels and after obtaining permits and licences from the statutory authorities. Clearances have been granted by the Oil Industry Safety Directorate, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organizations, the Pollution Control Board and all other statutory authorities. The Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted by WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 14 M/s. Mecon, which is one of the approved agencies of the Ministry of Environmental and Forest. According to the respondents, 90% of the route is through agricultural/barren lands avoiding residential areas and even in those areas where the pipeline passes through a residential area, maximum effort was taken to ensure that the pipeline passes at a distance from permanent structures. It is further stated that the Central Government after following the procedure contemplated under the Act has issued Ext.R7(a) declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act whereby the right of user of the above land is vested with the 7th respondent free of all encumbrances. It is further stated that after laying the pipeline, the land which are essentially paddy fields, will be restored back to the petitioners and they can continue to cultivate the same without any restrictions. Though as per the provisions of the Act, the property owners are entitled to 10% of land value as compensation for the land as provided under Section 10 of the Act for acquisition of the right of user, the Government of Kerala, taking note of the facts and circumstances, have issued Ext.R7(c) order by which, the market value for the purpose of computing land compensation under the Act, shall be 10 times the notified fair value of the land. Other benefits are also extended to the land owners. According to the respondents, the route was fixed after extensive scientific study by experts and after meeting all WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 15 statutory formalities. The safety aspect was also considered from all angles. It is further contended that the 4th respondent has submitted the report before the Central Government after considering all objections and it was thereafter that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued. On issuing such declaration, the right of user of the land would vest with the concerned respondent.
4. I have heard Sri. E.A.Bijumon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases, Sri. Saji Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the additional 7th respondent and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned Government Pleader.
5. Sri. Bijumon, the learned counsel contended that the petitioners herein submitted that if the pipeline is drawn through the property of the petitioners, the land would become useless and they will not be in a position to put the land to more beneficial use in the future. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioners had filed their objections before the competent authority objecting to the laying of the pipelines under the land and they were also heard. However, no orders either allowing or disallowing their objections were passed by the competent authority.
6. Sri. Saji Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent submitted that the selection of route was done by a WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 16 body of expert keeping in mind the technical, operational and safety requirements stipulated by statutory bodies and the alignment so fixed have been approved and declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued. He would point out that the objection raised by the petitioners is with regard to the alignment of the pipeline which has been fixed taking note of all scientific aspects including the safety angle.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced.
8. On going through the scheme of acquisition under Act of 1962, it can be seen that Section 3 of the Act provides for publication of notification for acquisition. It states that whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum or any mineral from one locality to another locality pipelines may be laid by that Government or by any State Government or a Corporation and that for the purpose of laying such pipelines it is necessary to acquire the right of user in any land under which such pipelines may be laid, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire the right of user therein. In the notification so issued a brief description of the land is to be given and the notification has to be published in the prescribed manner. On the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central Government or by the WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 17 State Government or the Corporation which proposes to lay pipelines or any mineral and his servants and workmen to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land specified in the notification and do incidental activities as provided under Section 4 of the Act. However, the provision provides that where exercising any power under this Section, such person or any servant or workmen of such person shall cause as little damage or injury as possible to such land. Section 5 of the Act provides an opportunity to the objectors to raise their objections. It states that any person interested in the land may, within twenty-one days from the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, object to the laying of the pipelines under the land. The said objection has to be preferred in writing before the competent authority. The competent authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and after making such further inquiry, if necessary, may either allow or disallow the objections. Sub- clause (3) of Section 5 says that the order so passed shall be final. After allowing or disallowing the objection, the competent authority is required to make a report in respect of the land described in the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the Central Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 18 proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government under Section 6(1) of the Act. On receipt of such a report, the Central Government is required to consider the same and if it is satisfied that such land is required for laying any pipeline for the transport of petroleum or any mineral is required to issue a notification in the Official Gazette declaring that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines should be acquired. On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6, the right of user in the land specified therein will vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. In the case on hand, the Central Government has issued the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act.
9. In the instant case, the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette No. 39 dated September 30 to October 6 as contemplated under law. After considering the objections raised by the objectors, a report was forwarded to the Central Government. The Central Government on being satisfied with the larger public issued a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act by Gazette No. 2 dated January 12 to January 18, 2020. The right of user of the land was thus declared and the property was ordered to be vested with the 7th respondent free of all encumbrances.
10. The contention of the petitioners is that the present alignment WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 19 of the pipeline would disrupt their rights over the property and would prevent them from putting up any construction at a later stage. The fact remains that the pipeline is being drawn through paddyland. The Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 has been enacted to conserve paddy land and restrict the conversion and reclamation of land with intent to promote growth in the agricultural structure. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioners that they would be prevented from putting up constructions in the land has no basis.
11. Insofar as the alignment of the pipeline is concerned, the petitioners have not placed any material to show either before the competent authority or before this Court that the execution of the project is actuated by mala fides. The records reveal that the alignment was fixed by experts having vast knowledge and expertise. Quite an effort has gone into while drawing the pipeline through paddy fields and avoiding other structures in a thickly populated state like Kerala. Collateral damage has been reduced to a minimum and the project costs have also been reduced substantially. The fact that the lines are being drawn for transporting petroleum and it is in the larger interest of the Nation cannot be disputed. For the incidental damages that have been caused, compensation which is much more than what is mandated in the statute is being granted to the owners of the land. This fact is evident WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 20 from Ext.R7(c). If the petitioners have a grievance that the compensation determined by the competent authority is less, they can very well approach the District Judge under Section 10 of the Act seeking redetermination of the compensation.
Having considered all the relevant facts, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference.
These writ petitions will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE ps/18/2/2021 WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 21 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5966/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE PROPERTY SKETCH VIDE SY. B4.22068 DT 9.1.1980.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 21.6.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
8.3.2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION UNDER
SECTION 6(1) OF THE ACT, PUBLISHED IN
GAZETTEE NO.2 DATED JANUARY 12 -
JANUARY 18, 2020 BY THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT R7(b) COPY OF THE COLOUR PRINT OUT OF THE
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND OF THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE LAND OF
OTHERS IN WHICH THE RIGHT OF USER IS
ACQUIRED.
EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.90/2019/RD DATED 07.01.2019 ISSUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 22
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6033/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE PROPERTY SKETCH
VIDE SY B4.22068 DT 09.01.1980.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 26.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
08.03.2019.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 23
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6061/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE PROPERTY SKETCH VIDE
SY.B4-22068 DT 09.01.1980.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
08.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR HEARING TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 16.03.2019.
ESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION
6(1) OF THE ACT, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTEE NO.2
DATED JANUARY 12 - JANUARY 18, 2020 BY THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT R7(b) COPY OF THE COLOUR PRINT OUT OF THE
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH THE LAND OF OTHERS IN WHICH THE
RIGHT OF USER IS ACQUIRED.
EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.90/2019/RD
DATED 07.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 24
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10996/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED
25.3.2015.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED COVER DATED
27.5.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY SKETCH.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION
6(1) OF THE ACT, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTEE NO.2
DATED JANUARY 12 - JANUARY 18, 2020 BY THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT R7(b) COPY OF THE COLOUR PRINT OUT OF THE
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH THE LAND OF OTHERS IN WHICH THE
RIGHT OF USER IS ACQUIRED.
EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.90/2019/RD
DATED 07.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
WP(C).5966/20 & CON.CASES 25
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22068/2020
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED
17.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE PROPERTY SKETCH VIDE SY
B4.22068 DT 09.01.1980.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
08.03.2019.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION
6(1) OF THE ACT, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTEE NO.2
DATED JANUARY 12 - JANUARY 18, 2020 BY THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT R7(b) COPY OF THE COLOUR PRINT OUT OF THE
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH THE LAND OF OTHERS IN WHICH THE
RIGHT OF USER IS ACQUIRED.
EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.90/2019/RD
DATED 07.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE