Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15.A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm ) BPCL in W.P.No.36551 of 2024 wherein it has been stated as follows:-
The fourth respondent would counter the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition by contending that the transportation of petroleum products through pipelines have proved to be the safest, most cost effective, environmental friendly and an efficient mean. The pipelines connect the refineries to meet the fuel needs of the various states in the country. The Mumbai refinery feeds the demand of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh through the Mumbai – Manmad – Bijvasan pipeline spanning a total of 1332 kms and the Bina-kota pipeline runs through the states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Cochin refinery is one such refinery. The Government had decided to run a pipeline from the Cochin to Karur through Coimbatore. These pipelines were laid to meet the needs of petroleum for the people in Tamil Nadu. The total length of the pipeline was 293 kilometers of which 155 passes through Kerala and 138 through Tamil Nadu. The respondent had followed the procedure contemplated under the Act for laying the aforesaid pipeline. The respondents had also permitted the petitioners to continue their agricultural activities after the initial pipeline installation and for 22 years the petitioners have been carrying on their agricultural activities except for planting deep rooted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm ) trees. The pipeline has been effectively operational for over 22 years and there has been no adverse effect from the same. The original project was implemented by the Petronet India Limited. Petronet India Limited subsequently became the unsubsidiary of BPCL and ultimately merged with the BPCL and the right of user of the lands automatically stood transfer to the fourth respondent.
16.The fourth respondent would submit that in order to augment the transportation of petroleum products from the Cochi refinery and extending it to other regions and the state of Karnataka the Irugur-

Devanagothi project hereinafter referred to as “IDPL project” was conceived by the BPCL. This project is intrinsically linked to the Cochin-Coimbatore-Karur pipeline. IDPL project contemplates the execution of a pipeline running to an extent of 352 kms spanning districts in Tamil Nadu and two districts in Karnataka for the transportation of MS, HSD, Kerosene and Aviation fuel. The project runs from Irugur (Tamil Nadu) Depot of BPCL.

17.The fourth respondent would further submit for the installation of the IDPL project is in the very same parcel of land in respect of which the right of user has been acquired as being used and not an inch of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm ) additional land is being acquired. Compensation for the same was being offered to the petitioner at 20% of the land value plus damages to any standing crop which is specific to the state of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the implementation of the second pipeline does not involve the acquisition of any additional land. The right of user having already been acquired and compensation paid, the petitioners cannot object to the laying of the second pipeline. The fourth respondent has already paid compensation not only for the right of user but also compensation for standing crop and they would once again pay for the damages that would be caused to the crops when the second pipeline is being laid. It is the further contention of the 4th respondent that there is no necessity to go through the entire exercise since it is the very same lands that are sought to be utilized for the instalment of the second pipeline. Therefore it is their contention that a notice under Section 7 (1) of the Act would suffice and would serve as an official intimation to the petitioners regarding commencement of the pipeline activity for IDPL project so as to enable the BPCL to enter upon the land. It is the further contention that the Central Government had vested the right of user on BPCL for the Cochin-Coimbatore-Karur pipeline project. Therefore, there is no necessity to initiate a separate acquisition proceeding for right of user as there is no change in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm ) property.

19.Counter affidavit of the fourth respondent has been filed along with an application for vacating the stay granted wherein they have reiterated the contentions stated in the counter affidavit to W.P.No.36551 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm ) of 2024. The respondent would contend that though the competent authority had issued a notice on 30.11.2024, calling upon the petitioner submit the details required for compensation distribution and the ownership details and the same has not been responded to by the petitioner. The compensation payable to the land owners including the .. petitioner under Section 10 of the Act had been determined after the issue of notice to the petitioner on 31.01.2024. The petitioner had failed to appear in person for the enquiry on 05.02.2024. Once again a notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.02.2024 for enquiry on 19.02.2024 for which also there was no response. Finally, the competent authority by communication dated 27.05.2024, had informed the petitioner that he may appear on 31.05.2024 and collect compensation as determined after producing the necessary bank account details. Despite all these notices, the petitioners refused to receive the compensation and therefore the same remain in deposit with the competent authority. They would further contend that the petitioners have chosen to approach this Court when the pipeline work is nearing completion by challenging the notice dated 01.11.2023. The fourth respondent would state that more than 100kms of the pipeline have already been laid and the completion of IDPL project is essential to meet the fuel needs of the States of Tamilnadu and Karnataka https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/04/2025 08:36:30 pm ) with future expansion to other parts of Tamil Nadu. In fact the Government of Tamil Nadu had advised the project proponent namely BPCL to align the pipelines alongside the state of National Highways which was accepted by BPCL. The fourth respondent BPCL has ensured the minimum intrusion into day to day activities of the land owners. Therefore, they sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.