CWP No.13938 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 13938 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 5.10.2009 Ravinder Kumar Tayal ....Petitioner. vs. Union of India and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR -- Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition the petitioner seeks to impugn a notification dated 10.5.2006 issued under section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right and User in land) Act, 1962. The Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, after issuing the aforesaid notification affirmed its proposal to acquire private land for purposes of laying down a gas pipeline from Dadri in Uttar Pradesh to Panipat in Haryana, through another notification issued under section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right and User in land) Act, 1962 on 15.11.2006. This latter notification has also been impugned by the petitioner. It would be pertinent to mention that objections were filed by landowners after the issuance of the first notification, which were considered and disposed of before issuing the second notification. The aforesaid notifications have been assailed by the petitioner contending that, there is a proposal at the hands of the petitioner to make buildings on a part of the passage over which the pipeline is to be laid, and there, is existing construction over some part of the passage of the pipeline. It is therefore submitted that the present acquisition shall cause irreparable loss CWP No.13938 of 2009 2 to the petitioner. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledged, that the built-up portion over which the pipeline had to be laid has since been demolished, and the pipeline has been installed through the entire acquired land. Keeping in mind the public purpose involved, as also the fact, that the built-up portion under the ownership of the petitioner has since been demolished for laying down the gas pipeline , we are satisfied, that the claim of the petitioner does not require further consideration. Despite our aforesaid determination, learned counsel for the petitioner after the dictation of the order submits, that while issuing the notification dated 10.5.2006 (referred to hereinabove) no mention was made about acquiring khasra No.24//4/1, whereas, the aforesaid khasra number was mentioned in the notification dated 15.11.2006. It is submitted, that it was imperative for the respondents to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and since the notification dated 10.5.2006 did include khasra No.24//4/1, the petitioner had been deprived of the aforesaid opportunity. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact, that the mistake pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner was sought to be rectified by issuing a fresh notification dated 2.4.2009 wherein khasra No.24//4/1 was duly mentioned wherein the objections of the landowners were again invited. It is apparent that one Sushil Gupta son Ram Dhan Dass resident of Gandhi Mandi,Panipat, who was one of the main shareholders in khasra No.24//4/1, had appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector and CWP No.13938 of 2009 3 raised objections, whereafter, another notification was issued under section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right and User in land) Act, 1962 on 29.8.2007, declaring the intention of the respondents to acquire the same. In our view the technical plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stood fully rectified with the issuance of the aforesaid two notifications. It would be pertinent to mention, that consequent upon the issuance of the notification dated 29.8.2007, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.19204 of 2008. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 5.3.2009, whereupon, the petitioner filed fresh objections. The aforesaid objections came to be disposed of by the Competent Authority vide an order dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure P7). The petitioner has also impugned the aforesaid order dated 28.4.2009 through the instant writ petition. We are of the view that merely on account of a technical defect the entire project cannot be put to jeopardy. This would indeed be the effect of accepting the claim raised by the petitioner. In fact the aforesaid technical defect, has also since been removed. In view of the above, we are clearly satisfied, that the impugned order dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure P7) passed by the Competent Authority of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 5, 2009 rk CWP No.13938 of 2009 4