(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2012, made in W.P.No.17216 of 2012.
(2.) THE appellant/writ petitioner is the Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'GAIL) a public sector undertaking established as wholly owned company of Government of India. It is stated that the GAIL is a company engaged in exploration, protection, processing, transmission, distribution of natural gas and other related activities in India. It is further stated that in order to provide adequate infrastructure for the production and easy transportation of Natural Gas and Petroleum Products throughout the country, GAIL undertook to establish connectivity pipelines and also laid LPG pipelines across the country. It is stated that the advantages of City Gas Pipelines in the city of Delhi and Mumbai without any incident of any danger to the public is an example of how safe is GAIL's pipeline that too catering to the needs of several people in those Metropolitan Cities. THE Government of India, through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas formulated various gas/Petroleum Network Grid Pipe Line Projects and the work of establishing transmission pipelines was entrusted to the appellant. In order to facilitate the same, the Parliament enacted the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which provides for acquisition of the rights of users in land for transportation of petroleum and other minerals. As per the scheme of the Act, wherever it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for the transport of Natural Gas from one locality to another pipelines may be laid by the Government and for that purpose, it is necessary to acquire the right of the user in such land, it may by a notification in the official Gazette declare its intention to acquire the right of the user therein. THE Act provides only for acquisition of the rights of the user of the land and not for the acquisition of the land itself. THE Act empowers any person authorized by the Central Government or the Corporation which proposes to lay such pipelines to enter and survey such lands, to dig or bore into the subsoil, to set out the intended line of work and to survey such land. If any person has any objection for acquisition of such right of usage, they are entitled to make objection to the competent authority notified under Section 3 of the Act, who shall hold an enquiry and who may by an order allow or disallow their objection. THEreafter, the competent authority shall forward to the Government the order along with the relevant records for the Government to decide as to whether the right of user of the land is to be acquired. THE Central Government may on the basis of such decision make a declaration under Section 6 and the right of user in the land shall from then on vest in the Central Government or on such Corporation proposing to lay pipelines, free from all encumbrances.
(3.) MR.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that by virtue of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, the right of usage of the land, which is subject matter of the notification has vested in the appellant and the respondents are duty bound to provide adequate protection for the execution of the project. It is further submitted that the appellant has not requested to use police force on the land owners, but has sought for protection of their workmen and machinery. It is further submitted that no land owners have challenged the notification dated 04.11.2011, and in terms of Article 256 of the Constitution there is a duty cast upon the State Government to ensure that the lands are made available for the purpose of laying the pipelines. The learned counsel further submitted that the land could be used for cultivation after the pipeline is laid and the apprehension of the land owners is baseless. The learned counsel referred to Section 15 of the Act and submitted that whoever obstructs any person in doing any of the acts authorised under Section 4 or 7 or 8 and whoever wilfully does any act prohibited under Section 9 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine or with both and whoever damages any pipeline laid shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 16 of the Act an offence falling under sub-section (2) of Section 15 shall be deemed to be a cognizable within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989. The learned counsel referred to the proceedings of the meeting chaired by the District Collector, Krishnagiri on 21.08.2012, where the Revenue Officials, officials of the Appellant and the land owners were present. In the said report, it is stated that the advantages of the laying cross country underground Gas Petroleum which increases the economic development of the country was deliberated threadbare in the meeting with farmers and the District Collector has appraised the farmers clearly about the fixation of enhanced compensation by the High Power Committee of the Government of Tamil Nadu based on the latest guideline value dated 04.04.2012 with 30% solatium plus 10% exgratia in addition to compensation for loss of trees, crops. The points raised by the farmers were discussed and a decision was taken in the said meeting that the appellant will start pipeline laying work from 22.08.2012 and there will be no obstruction from the farmers and they will extend full co-operation. It was further decided that in the event of any obstructions by the land owners for laying of gas pipeline, police protection will be sought. It is submitted that even after agreeing to extend full co-operation for laying the pipeline, since a few land owners objected to the same, the appellant sought for police protection. The learned counsel further submitted that only a few persons are objecting to laying of pipeline and majority of the land owners have understood the importance of the project. The learned further submitted that one group of persons hailing from other Districts have been travelling and trying to muster support from the local land owners to raise objection for laying pipeline. Therefore, it is submitted that Police protection should be given to protect the interest of the appellant's workmen and their machinery.