VALJIBHAI KEHRABHAI DESAI Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to amend. By way of this Special Civil Application, the petitioners seek direction to restrain the respondent-Gas Authority of India from entering into the petitioners' land for laying another pipeline. By way of amendment, the petitioners have also challenged the Notification dated 20.1.1996 issued under Sec. 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition etc.) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1962").

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners are the owners of lands bearing Survey Nos. 129, 132 and 133 in Village Karai, District Gandhinagar. In the year 1990, pipelines were laid by the respondent-Gas Authority of India in land bearing survey Nos. 129 and 132 having acquired the right of user under the Act of 1962. However, the owners of the land were served with a notice dated 20.3.1996 by the competent authority to submit their objections, if any, within a period of 20 days with respect to the Notification issued under Sec. 3(1) of the Act of 1962. The petitioners submitted the objections stating that the entire proceedings were bad in law as the pipelines were laid in land bearing survey Nos. 129, 132 and 123 without prior notice under Sec. 3(1) of the Act. The petitioners were heard on 1.5.1996. Notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was issued on 20.5.1996. Intimation of the same was given on 24.5.1996. The Special Civil Application was filed on 3.4.1996 before this Court i.e. prior to the Notification under Sec. 6. In view of this, the petitioner has challenged the said Notification by way of amendment.

(3.) Mr. Narsinh Madhavbhai Parmar, competent authority, under the Act of 1962, has filed affidavit on behalf of the respondent-Gas Authority of India. After raising certain preliminary objections, it is stated that the respondent-Company which was already having the right of user in the portion of the land in survey Nos. 129 and 132, felt the necessity to lay the additional pipelines for supply of gas across the Sabarmati river. The job regarding installation of the pipelines was entrusted to a foreign Company having specialisation in drilling technical system called Horizontal Directional Drilling which is not available in the Country. It is stated that under the said drilling system, the drilling is done without actually digging the earth. In the process, entry of the pipeline is made by Pilot Drill from one bank of the river which goes below the river bed at great depth and then comes out at the other bank of the river. The entire path of the Pilot Drill while installing the gas pipeline is controlled by computerised remote control system which works on the principle of magnetic current. It is also submitted that though the entry point of the hole while installing the said pipelines is always pre-decided the exit point is subject to some deviation and variation subject to geographical condition of the type of soil encountered by the Pilot Drill and the exact exit point on the other river bank can be reached only after Pilot Drill comes out of the surface. A sketch map has also been filed in which the portion of the land covered by thick blue line has been shown as the existing right of user from the other bank of Sabarmati river. With the help of Pilot Drill, gas pipe line was installed hoping and estimating that exist point of the said gas pipe line would come out on the other bank of Sabarmati river in the portion of land covered by the right of user at the point shown as blow-off point. However, the estimated destination and exit point was located beyond the land wherein there was already existing right of user of the respondent-Company. On account of this deviation/variation in locating exit point of the Pilot Drill, proposed line is required to be diverted from the actual exit point upto the point shown as blow-off point so as to cover the entire pipeline under the existing right of user. The respondent-Company is required to acquire the right of user for the land as shown in the map with dotted line. In view of this unavoidable situation, a necessity had arisen to acquire the right of user in land bearing survey Nos. 156, 132, 130, 129 and 133. It is pointed out that the land owners of other survey Nos. 156 and 130 have not objected to the acquisition. It is submitted that in view of this situation, there was no occasion for giving a notice under Sec. 3 of the Act of 1962 prior to the actual penetration of the pipeline in land bearing survey Nos. 129, 131 and 133.