Delhi High Court
Landmark Infracon P. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Ministry Of ... on 9 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: 133(2006)DLT627
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J.
Page 3268
1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent to lay down the pipelines for carriage of petroleum products through various plots of land Page 3269 of the petitioner and has sought a prohibition in laying down the pipelines in the manner as proposed by the respondents and to rationalize laying down the pipeline so as not to obstruct the petitioner from beneficial use and enjoyment of his land and to consider an alternative proposal as given by the petitioner for laying down the pipelines and quash the notification of right of user of certain areas of the land of the petitioner in plots bearing Khasra Nos. 753, 758, 759, 761, 763, 764, 765, 778/2, 793, 794 and 795 in Village Rajokri, New Delhi.
2. After the petition was filed by the petitioner, a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Order dated 16th November, 2005 to visit the site and submit report as to whether pipelines had been laid or only certain preparatory steps had been taken. The Local Commissioner appointed by the Court gave a report dated 18th November, 2005 observing inter alia that more or less work was done almost the entire length to different extent. While in some areas only trenches were dug whereas in other areas trenches were even covered after laying the pipes. There seems to be dispute with regard to laying of pipeline in Khasra Nos. 758, 759/1, 759/2, 793 and portion of 794.
3. The petition is contested by the respondents contending inter alia that as a result of the implementation of the Plans for the development of petroleum resources in the country, necessitating laying of petroleum pipelines in the country to serve as an efficient and cheap means of transport of distribution of petroleum and petroleum products has arisen. Though the land could be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, it was considered appropriate to acquire the mere right of user of land for laying and maintaining the pipelines and accordingly the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Land of User in Land) Act, 1962 was enacted empowering the Central Government to acquire the right of user in any land if it appears to the Government that it is necessary in the public interest to lay pipelines under said lands for transport of petroleum from one locality to another. The Act provides a detail procedure for acquisition of right of user for laying down the pipelines and use of the lands.
4. According to the respondents in order to meet the expanding demand of the petroleum products within the NCR regions it was decided that in addition to the existing pipelines a second pipeline being an alternate and additional pipeline was decided to be laid from Indore to Delhi. The route was from Indore to Bijwasan to New Delhi via State of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.
5. To lay down the last lap of the pipeline, Bharat Petroleum Corporation was appointed as an executing authority which carried out a detailed survey for selection of route from Piyala Village (Faridabad) to Bijwasan and the route was selected taking into consideration factors such as avoidance of any undulated areas to avoid exposure of pipelines in future, to avoid displacement of inhabitation, to avoid cutting of trees and ensure the shortest possible route with a minimum number of bends and, therefore, route was selected for acquiring the right of user passing through villages of Samalkha, Bijwasan, Nangaldeval, Bharthal, Rajokri and Kapashera. The said route was selected because in the said area no development has taken place and the land was lying vacant and it was nearest available route to Delhi and the most of the Page 3270 area under '2001 Town and Country Planning Map', Delhi was comprised of area demarcated as recreational area as such would not have caused dislocation or prevented land use meant for construction activity.
6. Consequently, a notification No. 930 under Section 3 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Land of User in Land) Act, 1962 was issued on 2nd March, 2005 which was published in Gazette on 12th March, 2005. The competent authority thereafter issued notices to the landowners on 13th May, 2005 and the notification under Section 8 of the Act was issued on 16th May, 2005 which was affixed on the notice boards of the office of the Tehsildar and the Panchayat. Notification No. 2600 under Section 6 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 was issued on 18th July, 2005 and thereafter, notice under Section 10 of the Act was issued for collection of compensation.
7. The respondents opposed the writ petition contending that the petitioner was not the owner of the land as the notification dated 2nd March, 2005 was published on 12th March, 2005 and the lands were purchased by the petitioner on 8th June, 2005 in Khasra Nos. 793, 795, 778/2, 765, 764 and 763 from M/s Aggarwal Estate Private Limited and purchased Khasra Nos. 762 from M/s. Survpriya Properties on 8th July, 2005. It was asserted that despite publication and due service of the notices to the land owners in compliance of Rule 8 of Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1963 no objections were received for consideration by competent authority under Section 5(1) of the said Act. According to respondents, at the time of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, petitioner was not an interested person as he was not the owner of the land in question at the time of issuance of notification under Section 3 of the Act. On publication of Gazette Notification dated 18th July, 2005 under Section 6, the land in question vested with the respondent No. 3 free from all encumbrances, as the competent authority had completed the process of acquisition of the properties mentioned in the notification dated 2nd March, 2005 and, therefore, no objection to laying of the pipelines could be filed.
8. According to respondents as the erstwhile owners failed to raise any objections, the petitioner is also not entitled to raise objections. Annexure 'P-1' filed by the petitioner showing the pipeline by the respondent and the pipe line route proposed by the petitioner was challenged. The route proposed by the petitioner has been contended to be in a zigzag manner. It was contended the plea of the petitioner for alternate route is inaccurate as the pipeline for carrying petroleum products cannot have an angle of sharp degree unless it is absolutely essential and cannot be avoided.
9. The respondent assertion is that since 24th October, 2005 was the last date on which the respondents could lay the pipelines on the land belonging to National Highways Authority of India, therefore, not only the pipelines were welded and laid down before 24th October, 2005 in the land in question but pipes have been brought to the site and are lying along the route up to Bijwasan.
10. The respondents also relied on the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court and contended that places where trenches were lying Page 3271 open are only places where bends were being made according to the required size. Preparation of bend is a site specific work and is of a special nature which requires specialized skill, equipment and advance preparation as each of the joint has to be joined perfectly, tested for leakage radio graphically and also tested for withstanding of high pressure of the products.
11. Regarding the route proposed by the petitioner it was contended that acquiring the new route as suggested by the petitioner shall require de novo acquisition proceedings and cutting of large number of tress on the route which will not be an environment friendly process. Profile of the Nala was considered to be a big constraint as it is a natural drain passing through the sandy terrain and takes a zigzag profile during monsoon season which may result in danger of exposure of line. The space between Nala and Gurgaon boundary was found to be physically insufficient. Taking into consideration the technical aspects of the land as proposed by the petitioner it was stated to have too many bends (Horizontal and Vertical) and passed through low lying area which would expose the pipeline on the first available movement of water flow.
12. On consideration of the respective pleas of the parties by order dated 24th November, 2005, the representative of petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Technical persons) were directed to visit the site on 25th November, 2005 and to report to the Court on the following:
i) Whether adequate land on either side would be available for protection of the pipeline if the same is relaid as per the green line on Annexure P-1?
ii)Whether embankment of nalla requires to be strengthened and if yes, would it afford adequate protection to the land comprised in Khasra No. 789, 790, 791 and 792 in the revenue estate of Village Rajokri?
iii)Whether it is feasible to lay down the pipeline as proposed in Annexure P-1?
2. If there is disagreement, point of disagreement would be specified so that it could be understood by the Court as to on what particular premise, objection is being raised and whether the objection is capable of being remedied.
3. Petitioner would inform the court whether the removal of trees, if any, from Khasra No. 781, 791 and 792 would require clearance from the Forest Department.
4. Petitioner would produce Khasra girdawri and Khata Khatoni showing that the petitioner is recorded bhoomidar of the aforesaid land.
13. The joint survey was carried out pursuant to the directions dated 24.11.2005 of this Court. Sh. Abdul Wahid represented the petitioner on 2.12.2005. The petitioner also sent contour survey drawing bearing No. RG/2005/1 by a communication dated 12.1.2006. On perusal of the contour drawing the respondent contended that the drawings did not show the width of the Bundh as per ground realities. It was stated that the number of trees shown in the drawings were less as compared to on the ground. The width of the well (provided for water Siphon System) provided by the Page 3272 Irrigation Department were not shown properly and the laid hume pipe diameter was shown by a single line. The level reference points were not indicated. The various observations made by the respondents regarding the contour survey drawings were communicated to the petitioner by communication dated 19.1.2006. The observations made by the respondents were replied by the petitioner by communication dated 24.1.2006 and some of the objections raised by the respondents were admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner admitted that nalla lines were not defined on the site drawings and it could be studied from the contour and cross profile and also the width of the nalla was to be studied from the contour cross profile.
14. Thereafter petitioner in May, 2006 filed another proposed pipeline route in response to the queries raised by the Court by order dated 24.11.2005. According to the respondent along with the affidavit giving proposed pipeline route, a Feasibility Report dated 24.1.2006 was given by Sh. Jayant Kumar Bagchi who had also given his report on the basis of best of study of the survey drawings without adverting to most of the objections raised by the respondents.
15. From the drawings submitted by the petitioner and objections raised by the respondent there seems to be various disagreements on various points. The respondents have filed a detailed affidavit in respect to the points crystallized by the Court by order dated 24.11.2005.
16. What transpires on perusing the copies of the sale deeds produced by the petitioner that some of the khasras through which the pipeline as proposed by the petitioner passes through have not been notified. Unless the land through which the proposed pipeline passes through is notified under the provisions of Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Land of User in Land) Act, 1962, the proposed pipeline cannot be laid.
17. The petitioner has contended that since the land belongs to him through which the pipeline proposed by the petitioner passes therefore, he will waive the requirement of notification under the provision of the said Act. Even if the land through which the pipeline proposed by the petitioner passes through merely on the statement of the petitioner that he waives off the requirement of notification under the provisions of the Act, will not be sufficient. If the rights are to be acquired under a particular Act they have to be done in the manner prescribed by the Statute and cannot be waived as has been contended by the petitioner. Such an action will also be fraught with various oppositions leading to various complications especially in case the land is specifically transferred by the petitioner. Merely on the basis of waiving off the rights by the petitioner, the entries may not be made in the revenue record leading to its own ramifications.
18. It is also evident on perusal of the respective affidavits, petition and the replies filed by the parties that in order to protect the bundh the respondent will have to move further into land in Khasra Nos. 760, 779 and 790 which will result into using much more of the petitioner's land then what has been occupied presently.
19. For laying the pipeline an 18 meter wide corridor is required all along the route. This is apparent from a detailed feasibility report, the extract of which Page 3273 has been produced by the respondent. Clause 8.1.1 ROU Acquisition/NOCs (0-12 Months) clearly stipulates a corridor of 18 meter wide which is as under:
Acquisition of ROU along the pipeline route and acquisition of land for various terminals, pigging stations, CP/SV/telecom stations Along with surveys/soil investigations, will also be done during this phase. It is presumed that detailed pipeline route surveys would have been carried out and survey reports would be available on the Zero date. Hydrological & Geo-technical investigations of river crossings would be carried out through regular tendering process during the phase. ROU of 18 M wide corridor will be acquired all along the cross country route for laying the pipeline. Competent authority for 5 states could be appointed who will acquire the ROU under the Petroleum and Mineral Pipeline Act by publishing Section 3 and Section 6 notified in the official Gazette of Government of India. Simultaneously all approvals/NOCs namely PCB/MOEF approvals/rail, road, river crossings, DM, NOC's, forest approval will be obtained....
20. There is disagreement on whether adequate land on either side would be available for protection of pipeline after the same is re-laid even according to the new route proposed by the petitioner. According to the respondent the route is on sloppy gradient and filled area is not suitable for the pipeline alignment. The depiction of the proposed pipeline on the grid map is different from the actual reality pipeline for the purpose of protection and prevention from being exposed, as it has to be laid down in an area where the soil is stable and not erosion prone and get washed away during the rainy season. 18 meter of land is required on both sides. According to the respondent the 18 meter width is not coming in the horizontal plane and is on a slope which will require additional cutting of erosion prone soil in the area which will enhance the chance of area being submerged in the ponds. The respondents have also shown their apprehension regarding deeper and wider ponds which will be dangerous to nearby buildings and boundary walls. The perception of the respondent is based on the fact that the area is in seismic zone and as the proposed area is very low lying area, therefore, the pipeline would be required to go deeper in existing ponds to find stable soils. This will result in the ponds becoming deeper and wider which would be dangerous to the neighborhood. This fact that the alternate route proposed by the petitioner will be too near to the neighborhood, is also augmented on perusal of a satellite photo of the area filed by the respondent at page 314 of the paperbook which shows that it will be very near to the adjoining buildings. It is also apparent that the proposed route is adjacent to the boundary wall of M/s. Ambience which is full of habitation which is also apparent from the said satellite photo as detailed hereinabove. The other point for consideration regarding the proposed pipeline by the petitioner is whether the strengthening of embankments of drain (nalla) would afford adequate protection to the land comprised in khasra Nos. 789, 790, 791 and 792 in the revenue estate of village Rajokri, New Delhi. The technical experts of the respondents were of the view that laying the pipeline through the proposed area was not feasible as the area was silty and clay tight and prone to erosion and so it was specifically rejected. What transpires is that even the Irrigation Department Page 3274 has constructed the bandh on low line silty clay area in order to protect it from erosion especially during the rainy season. The land is in low lying area is also evident from the existence of ponds in this area. The respondents were very categorical that even if the embankment of the drain (nalla) is strengthened, it will not prevent the soil from getting eroded thereby exposing the pipeline. Relying on the contour map it has been observed that shifting of nalla is also possible and in such circumstances laying the pipeline in such an area will expose the pipes as they are under constant threat of water being collected in the ponds. The respondents have also relied on variation in the record and the actual area occupied by the drain (nalla). The experts of the respondents have opined that strengthening the embankments of the nalla would not be protective of pipeline and would not serve any purpose for the pipeline.
21. The other points raised by the respondent regarding non feasibility of laying down the pipeline through alternate area proposed by the petitioner, cannot be ignored in the facts and circumstances. Changing the route of the pipeline as proposed by the petitioner would also require sanction of the Ministry of Environment and Forest which may not be granted. The route proposed by the petitioner will also run parallel to bandh and in that area the pipeline would have to be almost 3 meters below the ground level which may weaken even the existing bandh. What is also apparent is that from Khasra Nos. 790 to 794 the change of gradient of land is very rapid. The route as proposed by the petitioner consists of three 'S' Bends of small length which are not recommended and according to the respondents as per the standard practice such small bends should be avoided as the chances of pigs getting struck in small S bends is very high. The respondent contention regarding non availability of bends for the new proposed route is also justifiable. The plea of the respondent that only required quantity of pipeline material had been ordered and procured and there is a minimum generation of scrap while laying pipeline is not to be disbelieved. The pipeline is "5L Grade X-56 Along with 3 LPE coating" and cannot be procured easily cannot be ruled out. Although the petitioner has suggested the names of the indigenous manufacturers, however, the plea of the petitioner is based on their own perceptions and premise that the indigenous manufacturers can make the pipeline bends with exact quality and within a short time. The petitioner had not approached those indigenous manufacturers and obtained a proposal or an opinion that they would be able to manufacture the bends of pipeline as proposed by the petitioner within a very short time.
22. What emerges in the facts and circumstances in terms of order dated 24th November, 2005 is that there is not adequate land on either side for protection of pipeline, if the same is re-laid as per green line on Annexure P1 and other alternate route suggested by the petitioner. Though in terms of detailed feasibility report, 18 meter wide corridor may be available, however, the area will be silty and clay type and prone to erosion, leading to very high probability of exposure of the pipeline. From Khasra Nos. 790 to 794, the gradients of the land changes rapidly and the proposed route consist of 3 'S' bends of small length. What is more probable considering the facts and circumstances is that strengthening of embankment of nalla may not be Page 3275 adequate as it will not prevent soil erosion thereby having a very high probability of exposure of the pipeline. The strengthening of embankment may not afford adequate protection, as bandh itself is on low line silty clay area. For various reasons as detailed hereinabove, it is more probable that it will not be feasible to lay down the pipeline as proposed by the petitioner.
23. Disagreement about the proposed line are many. The gradients of land changes rapidly from Khasra Nos. 790 to 794 and the area is silty and clay type and prone to erosion and, therefore, may expose the pipeline. On account of 3 'S' bends of small length, the chances of pigs getting stuck will be very high which may not be conducive for proper functioning of pipeline. Procuring parts of the pipeline for the alternate route proposed by the petitioner may not be feasible within short time. The procurement of pipeline material is a lengthy process. The procurement can not be left to the petitioner. In case the pipes for alternative route are tried to be procured, it will definitely result into delay of commissioning of pipeline. The suggestion of the petitioner that the pipeline can be procured from local indigenous manufacturer also cannot be resorted to as the specific quality and material is required. Whether the indigenous manufacturer can make such a pipe line is based on the assumption of the petitioner dimension. In any case, for the sake of convenience of the petitioner, the chances with the functioning of pipeline which has national importance can not be taken nor the entire project can be put to a possible risk. The contention of the respondent that the area is in seismic zone and the proposed area of the pipeline is in very low land area which would require pipeline to go deeper into the existing ponds to find stable soil which will require making the ponds deeper and wider cannot be ignored. The respondent has filed detailed objections which cannot be ignored in the facts and circumstances. Even if the points proposed by the petitioner may be feasible, it will not be appropriate for this Court to substitute respondents technical opinion with the inference drawn by this Court on consideration of points and counterpoints of the petitioner and the respondents in exercise of powers in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have laid down the pipeline from Indore to Delhi in accordance with the norms settled by them as per their policy and for the alleged rights of the petitioner, the respondent cannot be directed to relax or modify their norms. The norms and the guidelines for laying down the pipeline cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary and the procedure adopted by the respondents also cannot be termed so unreasonable so as to attract interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the case.
24. Perusal of the relevant documents pertaining to the area also reflects unequivocally that removal of some of the trees from the alternate route will be inevitable. For removal of the trees permission from concerned authorities are required in accordance with provision of appropriate enactment. Further delay on account of taking permission to remove or cut the trees can not be ignored.
25. The petitioner has produced the khasra girdawari and other documents to show that he is the recorded bhoomidar of the land though respondents have contended that the petitioner does not have title of the land situated at Page 3276 Khasra No. 794 and the petitioner has only purchased half share of the khasra No. 798/2. Some of the land through which the petitioner has proposed the pipeline has not been notified and acquired under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and the statutory provisions cannot be given a go by merely on account of any statement by the petitioner.
26. It is no more res integra that judicial review of a policy evolved by the Government is limited. In any case on matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise, the court has to leave the matter for the decision of those who are qualified to address the issue. Though the petitioner has also produced the experts report, however, in the facts and circumstances, the norms of the policy evolved by the experts of the respondents in laying down the pipeline and following these norms the pipeline has already been laid from Indore to New Delhi, cannot be given a go by or can be ignored on account of the opinions of the experts of the petitioner. The policy and the norms evolved by the respondents for laying down such a long pipeline has been followed uniformly and it cannot be contended that the same norms and policy has not been adhered to by the respondents on the lands of the petitioner. Consequently, there is no arbitrariness or abuse of power by the respondents so as to entail interference in these matter.
27. Various factors given by the respondents in showing their reluctance to re-lay the pipeline on the route proposed by the petitioner cannot be termed irrelevant in the context. Relaying the pipeline on the proposed route by the petitioner has also been considered by the respondents and the views and all other aspects raised by the petitioner have also been taken into consideration, in inferring that the proposed line will not be appropriate and probability of technical lapses occurring will be much higher, cannot be ignored nor it will be appropriate for this Court to re-examine the whole matter and to interfere with the same. The respondents have taken into consideration all relevant factors and have eschewed from considering irrelevant factors and have acted reasonably within the parameters laid down by them. Consequently, the wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in the administrative decisions has to be followed which is that if the authorities takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschewed from considering irrelevant factors and acts within the parameters of law, the courts would keep off the same. This view is based on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Federation of Railway Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of India where the Supreme Court had held:
18. Even if we assume that there is force in the material placed by the petitioners that by forming new railway zones efficiency in the Railway Administration would not enhance, the reasons given by the Government and material placed by them in support of forming new railway zones is no less or even more forceful. Further, when technical questions arise and experts in the field have expressed various views and all those aspects have been taken into consideration by the Government in Page 3277 deciding the matter, could it still be said that this Court should re-examine to interfere with the same. The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschews from considering irrelevant factors and acts reasonably within the parameters of the law, courts would keep off the same. Even on the test suggested by Dr Pal, we cannot travel outside this principle to sit in appeal on the decision of the Government.
28. The apex Court had declined to interfere with the Government order based on policy decision in shifting the school from one place to another for having an ashram school at one place in Raj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. . The apex Court had held that the courts should not interfere with the decision or order granted by the authorities granting permission to shift school in absence of it being malicious, arbitrary or whimsical. The apex Court had held:
3. The grievance of the appellant is that on consideration of all relevant materials, the appropriate authorities having accorded permission for shifting of the school from Mallapur to Ardahpur and the same having been cancelled because of issuance of a contempt notice by the High Court, the appropriate authorities having exercised their jurisdiction vested in law and having focussed their attention to the relevant materials, the impugned order of cancellation is not in accordance with law. It is undisputed that the order of cancellation emanated because of issuance of a notice under the contempt proceeding. The shifting of the school from one place to the other or having an ashram school at one place is not governed by any statutory rules and it is in fact a policy decision of the Government. So long as the government decision is not actuated with any malice or is not the outcome of an arbitrary and whimsical act, the same should not be interfered with by a court of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This being the position and on the relevant materials, the appropriate authority having considered the interest of the public at large and having allowed the shifting of the school from Mallapur to Ardahpur, the same could not have been cancelled on the pretext that the High Court issued a notice of contempt in the matter. In that view of the matter, the order of cancellation has to be set aside and we accordingly quash the same. Since the parents of the students studying in the ashram school at Mallapur had made a grievance, the appropriate authority may reconsider their grievance and, if it is found that they are justified in their grievance, may pass appropriate orders with regard to the prayer for cancellation of the permission granted. This may be done within a period of three months from today and until final orders in that respect are passed, the school which is now functioning at Mallapur should be allowed to continue at Mallapur. The appropriate authority should also consider the question whether the recognition granted should be allowed to continue or not. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
Page 3278
29. Therefore, it is well settled that the courts, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. The court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the implementation of a decision, no law is violated and people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor the court inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more logical. In Netai Bag and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , the Supreme Court had observed:
The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the government merely because it feels that Anr. decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical.
30. In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Ors. , it has been held that in exercise of their powers of judicial review, the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. If the policy cannot be touched on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it may affect the interests of a party does not justify invalidating the policy.
31. The Supreme Court was concerned with fixing of timing for departure and arrival of train in Union of India and Ors. v. Nagesh and Anr. . It was held that what should be the scheduled timing for a train for its departure and arrival is an administrative decision keeping in view the larger public interest or public convenience and not the convenience of the public of a particular town. Such a decision is within the exclusive administrative domain of the Railways and is not liable to be interfered in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents have laid down pipeline from Indore to Delhi in accordance with the norms and the procedure laid down by them and for inconvenience and/or full utilization of the property by the petitioner, the route of the pipeline cannot be changed though the respondents did consider the proposed changes and have found the proposed alternate route relatively unsuitable. In the circumstances, it will not be appropriate for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to lay down pipeline through the alternate route proposed by the petitioner.
32. This Court cannot ordinarily interfere in administrative matters, since the administrative authorities are specialists in matters relating to the administration. The court does not have the expertise in such matters, and ordinarily should leave such matters to the discretion of the administrative authorities. It is only in rare and exceptional cases, where the Wednesbury principle applies, that the Court should interfere, vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, Om Kumar v. Union of India 2001 (2) SCC 386. In U.P., Financial Corporation v. Naini Oxygen & Acetylence Gas Ltd. the Supreme Court observed:
Page 3279 However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide by, and functions and obligations to discharge. As such, in the discharge of its function it is free to act according to its own light. The views it forms and the decisions it takes are on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations. Unless its action is mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the Courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however more prudent, commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom ( or the lack of it ) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed by making the Corporation liable.
33. This Court will not sit in appeal over the decision of the respondents that the alternative route proposed by the petitioner is not feasible compared to route already chosen by the respondents. In Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr. (2002) 1 UPLBEC 937 (vide paragraph 10) the Supreme Court observed:
If the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decisions and orders of quasi-judicial authorities, it follows equally that it cannot do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known that more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities. They have a certain amount of discretion available to them. They have "a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred". (per Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Metropolitan Borough Counsel of Tameside 1977 AC 1014). The Court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities in such cases. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, the Court can intervene. To quote the classic passage from the judgment Page 2014 of Lord Greene M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation 1947 (2) ALL ER 680:
It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyer familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word 'unreasonable' in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general discretion of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with the discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters Page 3280 which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting 'unreasonably'. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.
34. The observation of the Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India are worth consideration where it was observed:
(3) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(4) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal over administrative decisions but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(5) The Court does not have the expertise to correct an administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible.
As Lord Denning observed:
This power to overturn executive decisions must be exercised very carefully, because you have got to remember that the executive and the local authorities have their very own responsibilities and they have the right to make decisions. The courts should be very wary about interfering and only interfere in extreme cases, that is, cases where the Court is sure they have gone wrong in law or they have been utterly unreasonable. Otherwise you would get a conflict between the courts and the government and the authorities, which would be most undesirable. The courts must act very warily in this matter.(See 'Judging the World' by Garry Sturgess Philip Chubb).
35. In these circumstances this Court must maintain judicial self restraint while exercising the powers of judicial review of administrative decisions. "In view of the complexities of modern society," wrote Justice Frankfurter, while Professor of Law at Harvard University, "and the restricted scope of any man's experience, tolerance and humility in passing judgment on the worth of the experience and beliefs of Ors. become crucial faculties in the disposition of cases. The successful exercise of such judicial power calls for rare intellectual disinterestedness and penetration, lest limitation in personal experience and imagination operate as limitations of the Constitution. These insights Mr. Justice Holmes applied in hundreds of cases and expressed in memorable language:
It is a misfortune if a judge reads his conscious or unconscious sympathy with one side or the other prematurely into the law, and forgets that what seem to him to be first principles are believed by half his fellow men to be wrong.
36. Taking the facts of the present case, the decision of the respondents to lay down the pipeline in a particular area cannot be termed malicious, arbitrary or whimsical. The other area proposed by the petitioner has also been considered by the respondent and has been found to be relatively unfeasible or inappropriate compared to the area from where the pipeline has already been laid by the respondent except some portions where also Page 3281 the trenches have been dug, as is apparent from the report of the local commissioner which has also been not refuted by the petitioner by filing any objections.
37. The other relevant factor which is also material for adjudication of this petition is that a considerable land has been acquired by the petitioner after notifications under Section 3 and Section 8 were issued by the respondents under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. In , Ajay Krishan Singhal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., the Apex Court was of the view that subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the validity of notification under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it was held that a subsequent purchaser at best is entitled to compensation based on vendor's title. In the case of petitioner, no objections were filed against the notifications by the earlier owners of the lands.
38. In , Ahuja Industries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., it was held that if a party had not got his name entered in the revenue records as owner or occupant of the land in question, then he could not complain about non-service of notice on him nor about the failure to grant a hearing. The apex Court was of the view that failure to make entries on the part of the Revenue Authorities by itself would not cast any obligation on the authorities under the Act to make a roving enquiry and try to locate an owner who might have subsequently purchased the land from the previous owner and would not render the acquisition proceedings bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice inviting objections to the acquisition proceedings or service thereof.
39. A conveyance by erstwhile owner after publication of notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State and a subsequent purchaser has no right to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings. In the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the notification No. SO 930 under Section 3 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 was issued on 2nd March, 2005 and was published in Gazette on 12th March, 2005. The notification under Section 8 of the said Act was affixed on the notice boards of the office of Tehsildar and where as the lands were purchased by the petitioner on 16th May, 2005 in Khasra No. 793, 795, 778/2, 765, 764 and 763 from Aggarwal Estate Pvt. Ltd and on 8th June, 2005 and the land in Khasra No. 762 was purchased on 8th July, 2005 from Survpriya Properties. If that be so the petitioner has no right to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings. In fact petitioner has not challenged the legality of the notice issued by the respondent nor can do so in the facts and circumstances.
40. For these reasons, the rule is discharged and the prayer of the petitioner for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from laying down the pipelines in the manner proposed by them in Khasra Nos. 753,758, 759, 761, Page 3282 763, 764, 765, 778/2, 793, 794 and 795 in village Rajokri, Delhi is declined and it is held that the respondents are entitled to lay down the pipeline as has been proposed by them in accordance with the rules and regulations nor the acquisition proceedings taken by the respondent under Section 3 and under Section 6 of the Act are liable to be quashed. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in any of the acts of the respondents nor the procedure adopted by them in laying down the pipeline following the policy evolved by them can be termed so unreasonable so as to entail interference and exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
41. The writ petition, therefore, is without any merit and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.