TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These are appeals against the common order dated 06.12.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos.9015 of 2007 and 9016 of 2007.

(3.) The facts very briefly are that the Government of Gujarat by its letter dated 31.01.2006 requested the Government of India for approval of the nomination of persons to be appointed as Competent Authority for acquisition of right of user under the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and one of the persons was Shri V.I. Gohil, Retired Deputy Collector. In the letter dated 31.01.2006 of the Government of Gujarat making the aforesaid request to the Government of India, it was stated that the expenses of pay and allowances and any other incidentals of the officials shall be borne by the respondent no.4-company from the date of their joining in the respondent no.4-company. The Government of India approved the appointment of Shri V.I. Gohil and issued a notification under Section 2(a) of the Act authorizing Shri V.I. Gohil to act as the Competent Authority under the Act for laying of the pipelines by respondent no.4 for transportation of natural gas in the State of Gujarat from the LNG terminals at Jamnagar and Hazira in Gujarat for distribution to various consumers located in the State of Gujarat and in the adjoining States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh in respect of all the districts of Gujarat. The Competent Authority under the Act then issued notices under Section 6(1) of the Act to the appellants for the acquisition of the right of user of their properties and although the appellants filed objections to the proposed acquisition, the same was decided against the appellants. The appellants then filed claims for compensation under Section 10 of the Act before the Competent Authority and the claim for compensation was taken up for hearing at the office of the respondent no.4. The appellants raised preliminary objections to the sitting of the Competent Authority at the premises of the respondent no.4 in view of the fact that the claim for compensation was in respect of the acquisition of right of user for the project of the respondent no.4.