[2025:RJ-JP:46510] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7294/2024 Ramdev S/o Late Shri Ganpatram (Deceased), Through Legal Heir Raj Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Ramdev, Resident Of Village Ranoli, Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Competent Authority, Mehsana-Bhatinda, Natural Gas Pipeline Network Project, Gspl India Gasnet Limited (Gigl), 267, Muktnand Nagar, Opposite Puja Tower, Gopalpura Bypass Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Pin Code- 302018. 2. Senior Manager, Mehsana-Bhatinda, Natural Gas Pipeline Network, Gspl India Gasnet Limited, Gspl Bhavan, Sector 26, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad 382028 (Gujarat) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sumati Bishnoi, Adv. Mr. Harish Chandra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 18/11/2025 1. Both the parties are ad idem that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 27.09.2021 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanwar Mal Vs. Union of India and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10921/20212), which reads as under:- “1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition, inter alia, with a grievance that respondent No.2 had laid a gas pipeline in [2025:RJ-JP:46510] (2 of 3) [CW-7294/2024] petitioner’s land without paying requisite compensation and the damages in lieu of the standing crop, which was destroyed on account of laying the gas pipeline. 2. Learned counsel fairly submits that the petitioner does not challenge the authority or property of the respondents, so far as laying down the gas pipeline is concerned, he has a grievance as the same has been done without determination of the proper amount of compensation. 3. Indisputedly, the notification in relation to laying down the pipeline beneath petitioner’s land was issued on 18.10.2012 and the petitioner had failed to lodge any objection in terms of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. Now the grievance in relation to amount determined can be raised before the competent authority. 4. Ms. Sumati Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in caveat submits that the respondent-company who has laid the gas pipeline is ready and willing to pay the amount as determined by the competent authority, as and when petitioner approaches the company. 5. Having regard to the submissions made the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear in the concerned Panchayat office on 04.10.2021, on which date representative of the respondent No.2-company shall hand over the cheque equal to the amount as determined by the competent authority (subject of course to applicable TDS). The company shall also provide copy of the order/calculation made by the competent authority, while determining the compensation/claim. 6. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall have his right reserved to assail the determination of the compensation under Section 10 of the Act of 1962 and the limitation applicable for proceeding under Section 10 shall commence from the date, when the petitioner receives the amount of cheque offered by respondent No.2. 7. The writ petition as well as stay application stand disposed of.” [2025:RJ-JP:46510] (3 of 3) [CW-7294/2024] 2. The directions contained in the said order shall apply to the case of the petitioner mutatis mutandis with modification as agreed between the parties that it will be open for the authorities to make payment through online mode also. 3. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J AVINASH GULERIA /128