1 2025:CGHC:20842-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 298 of 2025 Amrit Bai Patel W/o Late Shri Amar Singh Patel Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Nawapara, Post - Kachhar, Police Station - Bhupdeopur, Tahsil - Kharsia, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, New Delhi India 2 - GAIL (India) Limited Through The Chairman Cum Managing Director, GAIL (India) Limited, Registered Office 16 Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (India) 3 - The Chairman Cum Managing Director, GAIL (India) Limited, Registered Office 16 Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (India) 4 - The Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, Camp Office - Second Floor, Ariena The Butique Hotel, V.I.P. Chowk Telibandha Raipur Chhattisgarh Present Address Camp Office - Second Floor, Forum Business Center, Bhatagaon Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.05.2025 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.05.07 17:18:47 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4800 of 2023 (Amrit Bai Patel Vs. Union of India and others) by which learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts are that the first and foremost contention of the appellant is that in respect of laying of pipeline by the respondent authorities under the lands of the appellant bearing khasra No.24, 31 & 32 situated at village Nawapara, PH No.38, Thasil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, the appellant raised an objection as enumerated under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1962’), however, the respondent authorities without following the due process of law and without forwarding the said objection to the concerned authority of the Central Government straightaway rejected the objection of the appellant in an illegal and arbitrary manner and issued the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1962 for acquisition of the land with regard to right of user in the land for laying the pipelines. 4. The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2023, preferred writ petition before learned Single Judge of this Court i.e. WPC No. 3 4800/2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Single Judge is perverse and contrary to law. Learned Single Judge has failed to see that the letter/order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P/1 in W.P. (C) No. 4800/2023) issued by the respondent No.4 is arbitrary, illegal and against the law and has also failed to see that the letter/order dated 06.05.2023 has been issued by the respondent No.4 without proper application of mind. If the letter/order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P/1 in WPC No. 4800/2023) is perused, it appears to have been passed with respect to villages falling within District- Janjgir Champa (Sakti), whereas the lands of the appellant are situated in District Raigarh and furthermore the lands of the appellant were shown to be lands diverted for industrial purpose whereas the lands of the appellant are diverted for commercial purpose. He further submits that the letter/order dated 06.05.2023 is illegal for the reason that the respondent No.4 has no power to make acquisition under Section 6 of the Act of 1962. The letter/order dated 06.05.2023 has been passed without conducting proper inquiry and the objection raised by the appellant/writ petitioner has been decided without spot inspection and making survey of lands. Copy of the report under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1962 forwarded by the competent authority to the Government was claimed by the appellant/writ petitioner under the 4 Right to information act 2005, but the same was not provided to the appellant/writ petitioner on the ground of public interest and even in appeal it has not been provided to the appellant/writ petitioner whereas one Laxminarayan has been given such report under the Right to Information Act 2005 in respect of his land and as such, it appears that there are some illegality in proceedings, and therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner is not being given report prepared under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1962. One tube well (which was more than 10 years beforehand, installed on Khasara No. 32) was just within distance of 2 meters from the center of the pipeline laid near tube well and the said tube well comes in category of permanent structure and the tube well is now under ROU and therefore laying pipeline near the tube well is nothing but clear violation of the provision given in Section 7(1)(i) (b) of the Act of 1962, but the fact regarding existence of tube well on Khasara No. 32 just under ROU was concealed in return filed by the respondent No. 2 to 4 and in so far as the lands Khasara No. 24, 31 & 32 are concerned, they are to be used for commercial purpose and have been diverted well before publication of the notice under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1962 and furthermore, the lands have already been given on rent to Ambika Prasad Patel on 11.12.2021 and if the pipeline is laid under Khasara No. 24, 31, & 32, it would cause irreparable loss to the appellant / writ petitioner because all these three lands would not be in position to be used for commercial purpose. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be 5 allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the objection raised by the appellant has been considered and rejected by the respondent authorities vide order impugned dated 6-5-2023 (Annexure- P/1) and thereafter, the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1962 has also been issued. The ground raised by the appellant to challenge the rejection of objection on the ground that the rejection has not been reported to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 1962 is not sufficient to interfere with the impugned rejection. Learned Single Judge has further observed that even at this stage, the rejection cannot be challenged, as the notification under Section 6 (1) has already been issued. Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has granted liberty in favour of the appellant to challenge the legality and validity of the notification issued under Section 6(1) 6 of the Act, 1962, if so advised. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with wit petition as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu