- Case
- DILIP MANIKRAO DHANDE AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA THR. ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI AND ORS. (Bombay High Court, 01-04-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, National Highways Act.
Facts: Several petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 10(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (PMP Act), arguing it is arbitrary, oppressive, unjust, and violates their property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. They contended that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) should apply, ensuring just and fair compensation.
Procedural Posture: The case originated as a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The petitioners sought to challenge the constitutional validity of a section of the PMP Act.
Issue: 1. Is Section 10(4) of the PMP Act, 1962 constitutionally valid, particularly concerning the adequacy of compensation for the acquisition of the right of user in land for laying pipelines? 2. Does the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 apply to acquisitions under the PMP Act, 1962, thereby entitling landowners to enhanced compensation? 3. Are Section 6(2) of the PMP Act and Section 3-D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 pari materia, allowing for the application of the latter's provisions to acquisitions under the PMP Act?
Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 10(4) of the PMP Act, 1962. The court held that the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 does not automatically apply to acquisitions under the PMP Act, 1962, and that Section 6(2) of the PMP Act and Section 3-D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 are not pari materia.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the PMP Act had already been considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya v. State of Gujarat, 2016 (9) SCC 791. The Court emphasized that the PMP Act acquires only the 'right of user' and not the land itself, distinguishing it from acquisitions under the National Highways Act, where the land is acquired outright. The Court also found that the RFCTLARR Act does not automatically apply to the PMP Act because the necessary notifications under Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act were not issued within the stipulated timeframe. The court stated that the compensation of 10% of the market value under Section 10(4) of the PMP Act is reasonable considering the limited nature of the right acquired.
