IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12823 of 2009 Between: Cherukuru Venkataramakrishnaiah, S/o. Nagaiah, Kavuluru Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of India, Rep by its under Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Safdarjung Road, New Delhi. 2 The Competent Authority, M/s. Reliance Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Ltd. D.No. 59-1-21A, Road No. 5, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or any direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in threatening the petitioner to receive the cheque, without passing any detailed award, entering into the schedule land in Sy.Nos. 93 to an extent of 25 ores in Kondapalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, without considering by giving personal hearing, the objections under Sec. (1)of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent not to cut the trees before conducting panchanama by taking measurements of the trees and pass detailed award by hearing objections by duly considering the reply/objections of the petitioner dated 20-6-2009 and the documentary evidence available to enable the petitioner to claim appropriate compensation in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 12823 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to have raised Eucalyptus plantation in 25 ares of land situated in Sy.No.93 of Kondapalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. The first respondent published a notification dated 28.05.2009 proposing to acquire the right of user in different extents of land specified in the schedule, which included the petitioner’s land, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’) for transportation of natural gas in Andhra Pradesh for M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, the promoter company of M/s. Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Limited. Pursuant thereto, when the staff of the Reliance Company (second respondent) attempted to cut the trees standing on the petitioner’s land and pressurized the petitioner to accept the meager compensation, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the proposed action of the respondents to cut the Eucalyptus trees standing on the petitioner’s land without conducting panchanama and without taking measurements of the trees which is essential for the purpose of determining the compensation is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that unless the objections are invited from the land owners and the same are considered under Section 5(1) of the Act and a detailed award is passed, the respondents are not entitled to take any further steps pursuant to the notification dated 28.05.2009. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the proposed acquisition of right of user in lands is for a public purpose through a company called “Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RGTIL)”. It is further stated that though a notice was issued under Section 5 of the Act, the petitioner had refused to receive the same and therefore, the same was served by way of affixture. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to attend the enquiry scheduled on 29.06.2009. Instead of attending the said enquiry, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Since there is no cause of action, the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 has been enacted to provide for the acquisition of right of user in land for laying pipeline for the transport of petroleum and minerals and for matters connected therewith. Sec.3 of the Act provides that whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of petroleum from one locality to another locality pipelines may be laid either by the Central Government or by any State Government or a Corporation and for that purpose it is necessary to acquire the right of user in any land the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette declare its intention to acquire the right of user. The substance of such notification shall be published by the competent authority following the procedure. On publication of such notification it shall be lawful for any person authorized to lay pipelines for transporting petroleum to enter upon and survey of the lands specified in the notification, to dig or bore into the sub-soil and to do other acts as specified in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 4 of the Act. Sec.5 of the Act provides that any person interested in the lands may within 21 days from the date of the notification under Section 3(1) object to the laying of the pipelines under the land. Such objection shall be made to the competent authority in writing and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard and thereafter make necessary enquiry and either allow or disallow the objections. As per Sec.6 of the Act after making the enquiry into the objections and after passing an award, the competent authority has to make a report to the Central Government containing his recommendations on the objections for the decision of that Government. Thereafter the Central Government shall, if satisfied that such land is required for laying any pipelines, has to declare by notification in the official gazette that the rights of user should be acquired. Once such declaration is published, the right of user in the lands specified therein shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. So far as the compensation is concerned Sec.10 provides that any person who suffered damage, loss or injury or any person interested in the land under which the pipeline is proposed to be laid shall be compensated for such damage loss or injury, the amount of which shall be determined by the competent authority in the first instance. As per sub-Sec. (2) of Sec.10 if the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties he can make an application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. Sub-sec. (3) further made it clear that the competent authority or the District Judge while determining the compensation shall have due regard to the damage or loss sustained by any person interested in the land by reason of the removal of trees or standing crop, the temporary severance of the land or any injury to any other property whether movable or immovable. In exercise of the Rule making power conferred by Sec.17 of the Act, the Central Government made the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Rules,1963 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Rule 4 of the said Rules deals with making claims before the competent authority for damages sustained by reason of the exercise of the power to enter upon and survey the land and other acts provided under Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 4(1) of the Act as well as the damages sustained by reason of the exercise of the power conferred by Sec.7 and 8. Rule 4-A provides the procedure to be followed by the competent authority while granting such compensation. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4-A which provides the procedure for conducting enquiry and granting compensation for damages or loss caused while exercising the powers conferred under the Act to the extent relevant, may be extracted hereunder : “2. For compensation for other damages or loss while exercising the powers conferred under the Act or rules made thereunder the Competent Authority shall,- (a) obtain the panchanama prepared by a team appointed by him duly signed preferably by the person interested in the land or by two independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality and the representative of work executing agency. The said Panchanama shall contain the details of damages or losses caused while exercising the powers conferred by section 4, 7 or 8 of the Act; (b) enquired the yield of crop, trees and fruits, etc., from the Government agency such as Horticulture or Agriculture Department of the Central Government or State Government or as per the statistics of the Central Government and/or State Government or from any local Government body; (c) … … … .. …. .. (d) … … … .. …. .. (e) … … … .. …. ..” A perusal of sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 4-A shows that obtaining a panchanama prepared by a team appointed by the competent authority is necessary and that the panchanama shall contain the details of damages or losses caused while exercising the powers conferred by Sections 4, 7 or 8 of the Act. Thereafter, as per sub-rule 2 (b), the competent authority has to enquire the yield of crops, trees and fruits from the Government Agency such as Horticulture or Agriculture Department or as per the statistics of the Government or any local Government Body. In the instant case, the proceedings initiated under the Act are admittedly at the stage of enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. After completing such enquiry, an award has to be passed. Thereafter, the Central Government has to declare by notification in the Official Gazette that the rights of user should be acquired. Since the said stage has not yet come, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to hold that the notification dated 28.5.2009 is arbitrary or illegal on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to raise the objections. However, as per Rule 4-A(2) of Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines Acquisition of Right of User in Land Rules, 1963, obtaining a panchanama prepared by a team appointed by competent authority is necessary. Such panchanama shall contain the details of damages or losses caused while exercising the powers conferred by Sections 4, 7 and 8 of the Act and thereafter, the competent authority has to enquire yield of crop, trees and fruits etc., from the Government agency such as Horticulture and Agriculture Department or as per the statistics of the Central Government or from any local Government body. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the fact that no panchanama has been conducted till today has not been disputed. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to conduct a panchanama in the presence of the petitioner and note down all the necessary details following the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules made thereunder so as to assess the damage caused to the land in question including the number of trees and the measurements thereof for the purpose of the statistical valuation for deciding the compensation while passing the award. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of making it clear that the trees standing on the land in question shall not be cut without conducting the panchanama as directedz above. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 23-07-2009 KLP