ORUMPATI DASAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

(2.) The facts of the case are that, the petitioners are residents of Pallipadu Village, Indukuripet Mandal, Nellore District, eking out their livelihood depending upon the Fish/Prawn culture as small farmers as well as agricultural labour. The first petitioner possessed a fish tank in an extent of Ac.3-22 cents in Khata No.427 in Sy.No.18/3, while the second petitioner possessed fish tank in an extent of Ac.7-00 in Khata No.365 of Pallipdu Village, Indukuripeta Mandal, Nellore District. It is the case that BPCL proposed gas pipeline passing through the land of the petitioners, which affects the fish tanks of the petitioner, including the connection of water pipelines. Respondent No.2 issued notice in Form-III dtd. 13/5/2022 to the petitioners to submit objections if any, as it has been decided to lay a pipeline cross the prawn and fish tanks to provide connectivity for natural gas transportation by BPCL from Krishnapatnam port to Hyderabad. Despite adjacent lands being available, for reasons unknown, the authorities opted to acquire the land of the petitioners. Notices under Form 3(3) were issued to the petitioners, to which the petitioners submitted objections. Despite considering the objections, the second respondent rejected the objections on the ground that a decision had already been made to lay the pipeline from Krishnapatnam to Hyderabad in the public interest. The petitioners contend that, no inquiry was conducted. The petitioners submitted further representations to Respondent No.2 to reconsider the decision contained in the proceedings dtd. 21/3/2024, however, there was no response to the representations. The petitioners contend that due to the gas pipeline being laid across the subject land, they are not able to cultivate as they previously did. The presence of the gas pipeline is making it impossible to cultivate the remaining land and laying of gas pipeline through fish/prawn tanks is highly objectionable since natural gas pipelines emit a significant amount of heat, slight odour which is detrimental to the existence of fish, prawn etc, and requested to grant the relief as prayed for.

(3.) Respondent No.2 - Competent Authority and Special Deputy Collector, Krishnapatnam - Hyderabad Pipeline Project, filed detailed counter affidavit, denying material allegations. It is submitted that, Respondent No.2 after ascertaining the sales statistics from respective departments i.e. Registration Department preceding three years form the date of intimation date i.e. 3(1) notification and after adding 100% solatium, fixed determination fo market value as per Land Acquisition Act, 2013. Award No.60/2024 determining the compensation to be paid was issued on 13/4/2024 by Respondent No.2 and has specified that any party aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation may prefer an application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, not later than 90 days of the receipt of the intimation from the Competent Authority under Rule 4(3) of P&MP Rules, 1963 under Sec. 10(5) of P&MP Act, 1962, in case the compensation passed is not satisfied by the petitioners.