Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court said the law would always come to the rescue of those who are ‘helpless and are fighting against the mighty State’, and directed a gas pipeline company to pay Rs3 lakh compensation to a minor landowner from Saoner tehsil for acquiring the right of user in his farm for a gas pipeline without following procedures.
The judgment, pronounced on Oct 29, noted that the March 2022 notification declaring the intention to acquire the right of user mentioned only Survey No. 75 and not the petitioner’s Survey No. 75/3/B. 75/3/B, which his counsel said measures three hectares. The court held that the omission deprived him of his right to object, and that his letter of June 25, 2022 seeking details could not be treated as an objection. 75 and that the village map did not show sub-divisions. They said they issued him a notice, heard his objection and passed an order on Sept 17, 2022, and gave prior notice of the panchanama. The court said the compensation could not be punitive and worked it out as 10% of the damages after reassessment. 7277/2025, the court directed the company to deposit the Rs3 lakh with the competent authority within four weeks from Oct 29, failing which it will carry 8% annual interest. The court also awarded Rs50,000 litigation costs to the petitioner. The damages, assessed earlier at Rs17.65 lakh, are to be reassessed on the land’s value as on Jan 23, 2023 within two months of the judgment, and the difference paid within two months thereafter.
You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Nagpur | Silver Rate in Nagpur | Bank Holidays in Nagpur | Public Holidays in Nagpur | Petrol Price in Nagpur | Diesel Price in Nagpur | CNG Price in Nagpur | LPG Price in Nagpur Stay updated with the latest Nagpur news.
On a landowner’s right to object within 21 days of such a notification, the bench said, “These provisions clearly show that in a country where democratic principles are to be followed, however mighty may be the State, the individual is given right to object. ” The petitioner, who moved court through his mother, owns Survey No. On the conduct of the authorities, the bench said, “The casual violation of procedural safeguards clearly shows that the respondent authorities have evolved their own procedure, disregarding the statutory provisions. ” The company and the competent authority argued that the notification specified the entire Survey No. Join conversation Share your thoughts in the comments Be respectful · TOI community guidelines The bench said setting aside the notification would not be in the public interest as the project was of national importance, and noted that the situation had become irreversible. The petitioner’s counsel told the court that he may not challenge the procedure if duly compensated.
A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Rajnish Vyas held that the authorities turned a blind eye to the procedure prescribed under the law. It noted that documents he sought repeatedly were either not provided or supplied late. They also contended that the petition was delayed. The court did not accept the delay argument, noting that the petitioner asked for the pipeline to be laid after harvest only to minimise his losses. Partly allowing Writ Petition No. The authority must disburse it within two weeks thereafter. Adv Aniket Wagdhare appeared for the petitioner. Adv SA Chaudhari represented the Union govt, while Adv Atul Pande, assisted by Adv Aditi Shah, appeared for the company and the competent authority. Download the TOI App.