IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.19204 of 2008 Date of decision: 5.3.2009 Ravinder Kumar and others. -----Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for respondents. ----- Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. In pursuance of order dated 21.1.2009, Director, Pipeline Division, Indian Oil Refinery, Noida is present in person. An additional affidavit has also been filed by Shri T.V. Mohan, Executive Director, Northern Region Pipelines, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Panipat. 2. The petition has been filed against acquisition of land of the petitioners in pursuance of notification dated 10.5.2006 under Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User Inland) Act, 1962 (for short, “the Act”), in pursuance of which, land was acquired for pipeline from Dadri to Panipat for transportation of natural gas by the Indian Oil Corporation. 3. On the last date of hearing, objection raised was that after notification dated 15.11.2006 under Section 6 of the Act, fresh C.W.P. No.19204 of 2008 notification dated 2.4.2007 was issued under Section 3 of the Act, but no notification under Section 6 was issued, thereafter. 4. In the affidavit now filed, it has been explained that notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.8.2007 i.e. after notification dated 2.4.2007. It has also been explained that change was effected after hearing objections of one Sunil Gupta, who had a factory on the originally proposed route and it was not considered viable to have the pipeline under a factory in view of provisions of Section 7 of the Act. 5. Further objection of the petitioners is that they were not given notice. The contesting respondents state that the petitioners had given an affidavit, which counsel for the petitioners says was withdrawn. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents states that instead of going into the disputed question, the competent authority will give a fresh hearing to the petitioners, if the petitioners file any objection within two weeks from today. He also says that this is subject to pipelines having already been laid. 7. In view of above, we do not find any ground to pass any further order. 8. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 05, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 2