NACHNA-HRRL REFINARY PACHPADRA Vs. JAGMALA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellants (respondents before the Single Bench) for assailing the stay order dtd. 10/6/2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8304/2022 in favour of the respondent-writ petitioners in relation to the land acquired by the appellants for the purposes of the water pipeline being laid for the Pachpadra Refinery.

(2.) Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar, representing the appellants, urged that the Government of India has exercised its statutory powers for acquiring the land for the purposes of establishing the refinery and as a consequence, the right of usage of the land has been vested in the refinery, which is a project of national importance. He submits that the only objection advanced on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Single Bench was that the authorities concerned took the thumb impressions/signatures of the petitioners on the acquisition notices by keeping them in dark and hence, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. In this regard, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Bhaniyana Vs. Union of India (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15018/2021 decided on 27/10/2021). He has also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ichchapur Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Competent Authority, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 42] and urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has clearly observed that an oil refinery is a project of national importance and any individual inconvenience has to yield to the national interest.

(3.) He urges that the objections raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are unsustainable. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved of the acquisition order/quantification of the compensation, the statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') and they would have to avail the same. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in these circumstances.