Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40755 (CHH)

AMRIT BAI PATEL v. UNION OF INDIA

WPC/4800/2023 · 2025-02-19

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:8591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4800 of 2023 1. Amrit Bai Patel Wd/o Late Shri Amar Singh Patel Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Nawapara, Post Kachhar, Police Station Bhupdeopur, Tahsil Kharsia, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner 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 Boutique Hotel, V.I.P Chowk Telibandha, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/UOI : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General with Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Shri K.S. Thakur, Adv. appears on behalf of Shri Sharad Mishra, Advocate 2 Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 19/2/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 6-5-2023 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.4 by which the objection raised by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that in respect of laying of pipeline by the respondent authorities under the lands of the petitioner bearing khasra No.24, 31 & 32 situated at village Nawapara, PH No.38, Thasil Kharsiya, District Raigarh, the petitioner raised an objection as enumerated under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 19621, 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 petitioner 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. Learned counsel would further submit that the rejection of objection of the petitioner is bad in law, as the said rejection has not been forwarded to the Central Government as required under the Act, 1962. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, ex adverso, would submit that the objection raised by the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority in its letter and spirit and rejected the same by 1 henceforth ‘the Act, 1962’ 3 passing a reasoned and speaking order and even the notification has already been issued 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, and, as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, at this stage. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Bare perusal of the pleadings and documents, it is quite vivid that the objection raised by the petitioner 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 petitioner 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. Even at this stage, the rejection cannot be challenged, as the notification under Section 6 (1) has already been issued. 6. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the legality and validity of the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1962, if so advised. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.02.19 17:52:27 +0530