THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16541 of 2007 (Dated : 17-08-2010) Between: GAIL (I) Ltd. Sheela Nagar, Visakhapatnam-50 012 Rep. by its General Manager …Petitioner A n d Vengalapudi Mahalakshmi R/o Narva village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhpatnam District and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16541 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 6 are the owners of various extents of lands admeasuring Ac.0.26 cents, Ac.0.24 cents Ac.0.70 cents, Ac.0.65 cents, Ac.0.70 cents and Ac.0.46 cents respectively in Sy.No.29. The petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) to lay the pipeline in the lands owned by the respondents 1 to 6. 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 pipelines. The competent authority decided the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 6 for acquiring the right of user in their lands in laying pipelines. Respondents 1 to 6 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 6 and registered the same as P.L.O.P.509 of 2003. Respondents 1 to 6 paid claimed amounts towards land compensation etc. The 1st respondent claimed Rs.8,45,240/-, 2nd respondent claimed Rs.8,65,960/-, 3rd respondent claimed Rs.7,85,700/-, 4th respondent claimed Rs.6,35,600/-, 5th respondent claimed Rs.6,60,000/- and 6th respondent claimed Rs.66,240/-. (b) Before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, respondents 1 to 6 examined one witness and marked two documents to substantiate their claim with regard to enhancement of compensation. On behalf of the petitioner herein, the petitioner examined Rws.1 and 2 and five documents were marked. The learned Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties proceeded to enhance the compensation as follows:- “Respondent No.1: Loss of acquired Land : Rs.1,560.00 Loss of trees : Rs. 400.00 (Rs.300 for vepa and Rs.100/- for Thumma Trees) Loss of severance : Rs.3,000.00 ___________________ Total : Rs.4,960.00 ---------------------------- (Rupees four thousand nine hundred and sixty only) Respondent No.2: Loss of acquired Land : Rs.1,440.00 Loss of trees : Rs.9,316.00 (Rs.9,216 for Jeedi trees and Rs.100/- for Vepa Trees) Loss of severance : Rs.3,000.00 ___________________ Total : Rs.13,756.00 ---------------------------- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred and fifty sixty only) Respondent No.3: Loss of acquired Land : Rs.4,200.00 Loss of trees : Rs. 200.00 (Rs.200 for Vepa Trees) Loss of severance : Rs.3,000.00 ___________________ Total : Rs.7,400.00 ---------------------------- (Rupees seven thousand four hundred only) Respondent No.4: Loss of trees : Rs. 500.00 (Rs.500/- for Vepa Trees) Loss of severance : Rs.3,000.00 ___________________ Total : Rs3,500.00 ---------------------------- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) Respondent No.5: Loss of trees : Rs.1,500.00 (Rs.100 for Vepa Trees Rs.500 for Akesia trees and Rs.900 For teakwood trees) Loss of severance : Rs.3,000.00 ___________________ Total : Rs.4,500.00 ---------------------------- (Rupees four thousand five hundred only) Respondent No.6: Loss of acquired Land : Rs.2,760.00 ___________________ Total : Rs.2,760.00 ---------------------------- (Rupees two thousand seven hundred and sixty only)” Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge, by judgment dated 31.3.2005 allowed the petition in part with proportionate costs. Hence this writ petition by respondent No.1 in P.L.O.P.No.509 of 2003. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the competent authority considered the material placed on record and fixed proper market value and allowed compensation at the rate of 1/10th of the market value for acquiring the right of user of the land for laying pipelines and therefore, the Civil Court is not justified in enhancing the compensation taking the value of the land at Rs.60 per cent. A further submission has been made that the respondents 1 to 6 having claimed the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- per acre failed to adduce any evidence and in which case the civil Court is not justified in fixing the value of the land at Rs.60/- per cent. have not placed any evidence on record to show that the market value of the lands was Rs.6 lakhs as on the date of the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. 5. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 supported the judgment impugned in the writ petition. 6. Section 10 of the Act deals with determination of the compensation, which reads as hereunder:- “COMPENSATION (1) Where in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4, section 7 or section 8 by any person, any damage, loss or injury is sustained by any person interested in the land under which the pipeline is proposed to be, or is being, or has been laid, the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay compensation to such person for such damage, loss or injury, the amount of which shall be determined by the competent authority in the first instance. (2) If the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of compensation shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by the District Judge. (3) The competent authority or the District Judge while determining the compensation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall have due regard to the damage or loss sustained by any person interested in the land by reason of- (i) the removal of trees or standing crops, if any, on the land while exercising the powers under Section 4, section 7 or section 8; (ii) the temporary severance of the land under which the pipeline has been laid from other lands belonging to, or in the occupation of, such person; or (iii) any injury to any other property, whether movable or immovable, or the earnings of such persons caused in any other manner: Provided that in determining the compensation no account shall be taken of any structure or other improvement made in the land after the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3. (4) Where the right of user of any land has vested in the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, shall, in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1), be liable to pay to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting, compensation calculated at ten per cent of the market value of that land on the date of the notification under sub- section (1) of Section 3. (5) The market value of the land on the said date shall be determined by the competent authority and if the value so determined by that authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, it shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge referred to in sub-section (2), be determined by that District Judge. (6) The decision of the District Judge under sub-section (2) of sub-section (5) shall be final.” 7. The respondents 1 to 6 herein claimed before the Civil Court that the value of the land is Rs14,400/- per cent and as such, they are entitled to 1/10th of the market value, i.e., Rs.1,440/- per cent. The Civil Court did not accept the claim of respondents 1 to 6. However, taking into consideration that the lands over which the use of rights have been acquired by the petitioner to lay the pipelines are nearer to Visakhapatnam city, has fixed the market value at Rs.6,00,000/- per acre and taken 1/10th of the market value of the land assessed at Rs.6,000/- per acre. The compensation allowed to respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6 is at Rs.1,560/-, Rs.1,440/-, Rs.4,200/- and Rs.2,760/- respectively. The compensation granted to the respondents is a trivial amount. Therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to interfere with the quantum of compensation allowed to the respondents. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.17-08-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTSICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.16541 of 2007 (Dated : 17-08-2010)