Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Appari Pulleswara Rao vs Union Of India, on 8 August, 2022
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11338 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioners own certain extents of land in various survey numbers in Konkapalli Village, Ambajipeta Mandal, East Godavari District. The 3rd respondent in the process of laying underground pipelines, to transport petroleum products, had initiated the laying of pipelines in the village of the petitioners in March, 2022. At that stage, the petitioners objected to the laying of a pipeline through their land, without following the process set out under the relevant Land Acquisition Act and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to raise objections and to propose an alternative route for the pipelines.
2. Aggrieved by these actions of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, it is stated that the route proposed under the initial survey was going through residential areas and lay out plots due to which, the residents of the village had filed their objections. Thereafter, a joint survey was conducted for re- routing the flow line besides Kowshik Drain Bund, going through the village or in another alternative, taking the pipeline across the Drain. As the alternative routes require permission from the Irrigation Department, the 3rd respondent sought the necessary permissions from the Deputy Executive Engineer, Drains, Amalapuram vide letter No.B/1/2021, dated 31.03.2022 2 and the officials of the Irrigation Department had also visited the area, on 04.04.2022, to ascertain the alignment of the route.
4. The 3rd respondent submits that there are two possible, alternative routes and every effort is being made to follow the alternative route along drain bund or across the Drain Bund after obtaining permission from the Irrigation authorities. However, in the event of the Irrigation Authorities refusing to grant such a permission, the 3rd respondent would necessarily have to undertake laying of the pipeline according to the original alignment which would go through the lands of the petitioners and other residents of the villages. In the event of such route becoming necessary, the 3rd respondent would undertake laying of the pipelines strictly in accordance with law and after grant of compensation in accordance with the relevant acquisition laws.
5. In view of the above submissions made by the 3rd respondent, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to pursue the alternative routes which would save the lands of the petitioners and to take up laying of the pipelines through the land of the petitioners only in the event of said alternative route not being available to the 3rd respondent.
6. Needless to say, any laying of pipelines through the lands of the petitioners, shall be done strictly in accordance with law and after ensuring compensation is paid to the petitioners in accordance with the relevant acquisition laws. There shall be no order as to costs.
3
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
08.08.2022 RJS 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11338 of 2022 08.08.2022 RJS