BOMMA VANITHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed "to declare the action of the respondents in issuing notification dated 03.04.2017 and 30.01.2018 proposing to lay petroleum pipelines through the agricultural lands of the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary."

(2.) Case of the petitioners is that, 1st petitioner is the owner of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.26 cents in Sy.No.131/2, 2nd petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.41 cents in Sy.No.56/1B and the 3rd petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.13 cents in Sy.No.55/3A, Ac.1.12 in Sy.No.55/3B, Ac.0.75 in Sy.No.56/3 and Ac.2.05 cents in Sy.No.57/1A of Dasullapalem village, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District; 1st respondent issued gazette notification dated 03.04.2017 declaring its intention to acquire right of user in the lands notified for the purpose of laying petroleum pipelines under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'); in the said notification, the land of the petitioners admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.34 cents in Sy.No.131/2, Ac.0.38 cents in Sy.No.56/1B and an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.55/3A, 55/3B, 56/3 and 57/1A were notified; the notification is completely vague and it does not give clear particulars of the effected portion of lands and it only gives the survey numbers and the extent of land proposed to be acquired, but does not specify the exact location of the land; Section 3(1) of the Act mandates that a brief description of the land shall be notified; the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Competent authority vs. Barangore Jute Mills' has dealt with similar issue and held 'mere mentioning of survey number and total extent of land in survey number and the quantum of land required is not sufficient and that the mentioning of exact location is mandatory and that non mentioning of exact portion of land through which right of way is sought does not constitute 'brief description of land' and such notifications are vague and that on such vague notification, persons who are effected by the acquisition proposals cannot submit their effective objections'; there is no reference of maps given in the entire notification indicating the exact location of land and no such maps are supplied to the petitioners; pursuant to the notification, petitioners were called for enquiry and they participated in the same, without knowing which portion of their land is being required to be acquired; in view of the vagueness of the notification, the petitioners could not raise effective objections; in spite of raising objections, the 2nd respondent has not passed any order on the same and even assuming that they passed an order, the same was not served on the petitioners; the 2nd respondent without passing any orders on the objections of the petitioners, sent a report and the 1st respondent acted upon the said report and issued notification of declaration under section 6(1) of the Act on 30.01.2018; petitioners are cultivating banana orchid on the said lands and if the pipelines are laid through the middle of the land, the whole land would become non-cultivable. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) When the matter came up for admission on 04.04.2019, an interim direction was passed directing the respondents not to interfere with the agricultural lands of the petitioners for the purpose of laying petroleum pipelines.