Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Banavath Sudhakar Naik vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 23 October, 2021
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, C. Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.239 of 2021
(Hybrid Hearing through Video-Conferencing)
Banavath Sudhakar Naik, S/o. late Ramulu, 30 years,
Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Cheruvu Madhavaram village,
G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District ... Appellant
Versus
The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Vijayawada-Dharmapuri Pipeline Project,
Rep. by its General Manager, Mumbai and others ... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. G. Rama Gopal
Counsel for respondent No.3 : G.P. for Revenue
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 23.10.2021 (Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ) This writ appeal would call in question the order dated 16.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1985 of 2021, dismissing the writ petition, wherein prayer was made by the writ petitioner for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not following the procedure contemplated under the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short, "the 1962 Act") and the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 (for short, "the 1963 Rules"), and in not issuing notification for laying second pipeline through the land belonging to the writ petitioner, situated in S.Nos.132/3C to an extent of Ac.0.30 cetns of Gaddamanugu village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The appellant is referred to as the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, at an earlier point of time, a pipeline was laid through his land after HCJ & CPK,J 2 W.A.No.239 of 2021 following the procedure prescribed under the 1962 Act and now the respondents are laying second pipeline without following the said procedure and the same is illegal and arbitrary for the reason that for laying the second pipeline, fresh proceedings need to be drawn and the same land cannot be used for laying the second pipeline for the same commodity.
3. Mr. J.U.M.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has submitted that judgment in the case of Ichchapur Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd v. The Competent Authority, Oil & Natural Gas Commission and another, reported in (1997) 2 SCC 42, has not properly been appreciated by the learned single Judge inasmuch as in the said judgment, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether water is a mineral covered under the provisions of the 1962 Act, for laying of pipeline for transportation of water. According to the learned counsel, the question as to whether for laying second pipeline, the provisions of the 1962 Act are required to be invoked or the same land can be used for laying second pipeline for the same commodity, was not an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Having gone through the judgment in Ichchapur (supra), we are afraid, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is not right in making the submission as indicated above.
5. In paragraphs 12 to 15 of the judgment in Ichchapur (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue and observed as follows:
"12. There is no dispute between the parties that a notification under Section 3 of the Act was duly published which was subsequently followed by Declaration under Section 6 with the result that the right of user of the land in question vested in the ONGC. The question which is being canvassed before us now is that new pipelines for carrying another commodity cannot be laid unless fresh notification under Section 3 followed by a Declaration under Section 6, which too is made after following the procedure prescribed under Sections 4 and 5, are issued or the land itself is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for this purpose.
HCJ & CPK,J 3 W.A.No.239 of 2021 We shall consider this question, if need be, later as we intend to take up the other question, namely, the question whether "water" is a "mineral" or not, first.
13. This question arises in view of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act which provides that where the right of the user, in any land, has vested in the Central Government or in any State Government or corporation under Section 6, it shall be lawful by those authorities to enter upon the land and lay pipelines or to do any other act necessary for the laying up of pipelines.
14. Clauses (ia) and (ii) of sub-section (1) which are relevant are reproduced below:
"(ia) for laying pipelines for the transport of petroleum, it shall be lawful for any person authorised by the Central Government or such State Government or corporation to use such land for laying pipelines for transporting any mineral and where the right of user in any land has so vested for laying pipelines for transporting any mineral, it shall be lawful for such person to use such land for laying pipelines for transporting petroleum or any other mineral; and
(ii) such land shall be used only for laying the pipelines and for maintaining, examining, repairing, altering or removing any such pipelines or for doing any other act necessary for any of the aforesaid purposes or for the utilisation of such pipelines."
15. A perusal of the above would indicate that if the right of user of the land has vested in the Government for laying pipelines for transporting petroleum, it shall be lawful to lay pipelines for transporting minerals. It also provides that where the right of user of a land has vested in the Government for laying pipelines for transporting any mineral, it would be lawful to lay pipelines for transporting petroleum or any other mineral including the mineral for the transportation of which the right of user had already vested. The two rights, namely, the right to lay pipeline for petroleum and the right to lay pipeline for minerals have been linked together. If one is acquired, the other also becomes available."
6. Since in the case at hand, the respondents are likely to use the second pipeline for transportation of the same product, writ petitioner's case is not on a better footing; rather it is worse than the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
HCJ & CPK,J 4 W.A.No.239 of 2021
7. Law is well settled that when the land already acquired under the previous proceedings under the 1962 Act is available and a pipeline has already been laid therein, the said land can be used for laying the second pipeline also. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
8. There is no substance in the writ appeal, which fails and is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J MRR