THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16540 of 2007 (Dated : 17-08-2010) Between: GAIL (I) Ltd. Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-50 012 Rep. by its General Manager …Petitioner A n d Ganthakoota Nagabhushanam R/o Narva village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhpatnam District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16540 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is a Government of India Company engaged in distribution and sale of LPG and Natural Gas etc to the industrial consumers as per the allocation made by the Government of India. For the purpose of transporting the L.P Gas and natural Gas from one place to another, pipelines are laid under ground as the same is being considered as the safest and convenient mode of transportation for gas. 2. Respondents 1 to 8 are the owners of land admeasuring 77 cents comprising Survey No.54/1 & 57/1 of Narva villag, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) for acquiring right of user to lay pipeline in the lands owned by the respondents 1 to 8. A competent authority was appointed by the Government of India for determining the compensation payable to the land owners for acquiring the right of user as well as the damages or losses sustained by the land owners due to removal of trees, standing crops etc. while laying the pipelines. The competent authority decided the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 8 for acquiring the right of user in their lands in laying pipelines at Rs.55,126/-. Respondents 1 to 8 filed application under Section 10(2) and (5) of the Act for determination of the proper compensation. The II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam entertained the application filed by respondents 1 to 8 and registered the same as P.L.O.P.401 of 2003. Respondents 1 to 8 claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per square yard. (b) Before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, the respondents 1 to 8 examined one witness on their behalf and marked 18 documents to substantiate their claim. Whereas the petitioner herein examined one witness and marked one document to sustain the compensation granted by the competent authority. The learned Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam taking into consideration the situation of the lands near by Visakhapatnam enhanced the compensation from Rs.55,126/- to Rs.1,00,000/- under various counts and granted interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced compensation, by judgment dated 31.3.2004. The said judgment is assailed in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 8. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondents 1 to 8 having agitated before the Civil Court that the compensation awarded by the Competent authority is not proper failed to produce any convincing evidence in support of their claim in which case, the Civil Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation from Rs.55,126/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned in the writ petition. 6. I have gone through the judgment passed by the Civil Court. The Civil Court having taken into consideration that the lands are nearby Visakhapatnam proceeded to enhance the compensation from Rs.55,126/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. When compared to the various extents of land acquired from the petitioners for right to user in laying pipelines, the enhanced compensation is a trivial amount. Though respondents 1 to 8 laid a tall claim, they failed to substantiate the same by any cogent and convincing evidence. The only document placed on record is Ex.A-6 sale deed and as it relates to the house site, the Civil Court refused to take into consideration. Keeping in view the fact that the lands over which the right of user is acquired by the petitioner are nearby Visakhapatnam city, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.55,126/- to Rs.1,00,000/- under various counts, which includes lands compensation as well as trees compensation. As I stated above, the compensation enhanced is only a trivial amount, I am not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation enhanced by the civil Court. 7. The civil Court granted interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The same cannot be sustained in view of sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, which reads as hereunder:- “11(2): If the amount of compensation is not deposited within the time prescribed under sub-section (1), the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of on which the compensation had to be deposited till the date of the actual deposit.” A plain reading of the above referred provision indicates that the interest permissible on the compensation is at 6%. Therefore, the interest awarded on the enhanced compensation has been reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part reducing the rate of interest from 9% p.a to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.17-08-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16540 of 2007 (Dated : 17-08-2010)