Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010146232026 2026:GAU-AS:14058-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/256/2026 1.THE GAIL INDIA LIMITED, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), MAHARATNA COMPANY, BARAUNI-GUWAHATI GAS PIPE LINE (BGPL) PROJECT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS HEADQUARTER AT GAIL BHAWAN, 16 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI- 110066. 2: THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, ASSAM GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) MAHARATNA COMPANY BARAUNI-GUWAHATI GAS PIPE LINE (BGPL) PROJECT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOTEL ROYAL DE CASA BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD WIRELESS BELTOLA GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM-781028. …… ..Appellants -VERSUS - 1.KADDUS ALI, S/O LATE UZIR MAHMUD FAKIR, VILLAGE- KHAIRABARI, P.O. AND P.S.-BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI DISTRICT-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN-781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA P.O. AND P.S.-BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BARNAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE BARNAGAR BARPETA P.O.-SORBHOG DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781317. 5:THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI PIN-110001. …… ..Respondents Page No.# 2/10 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari and Mr. B. Chowdhury, Advocates. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anowar Hussain, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for respondent No.2. : Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Date of Hearing : 23.09.2026. Date of Judgment : 23.09.2026. J UDGMENT & O RDER ( ORAL ) (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari and Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned Advocates for the appellants/GAIL India Limited & Anr. and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anowar Hossain, learned Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam are present. 2. In this intra-court appeal, the appellants have mounted challenge to the judgment and order dated 16.06.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.572/2024, whereby it has been held that for determination of the compensation for acquisition of Page No.# 3/10 the right of user of land of respondent No.1 under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as “P&MP Act, 1962”), compensation would be calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “RFCTLARR Act, 2013”) by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015. By the afore-noted judgment, the competent authority was directed to determine the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, particularly, solatium and interest. 3. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, vide Notification dated 26.12.2018, published on 31.12.2018, acquired the right of user over the land belonging to respondent No.1 under the P&MP Act, 1962, for the purposes of laying the Barauni- Guwahati Gas Pipeline (BGPL) by the appellants/GAIL. 4. Before that, a notice was issued by the competent authority on 09.08.2019, which came to the knowledge of respondent No.1 only on 20.06.2020 and, therefore, he could not participate in the objection proceedings. However, later, a dispute arose whether respondent No.1 would be compensated under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 or the P&MP Act, 1962; which objection was raised by respondent No.1 before the competent authority, seeking a clarification in that regard. 5. The response of the appellants dated 07.08.2020 on this Page No.# 4/10 objection of respondent No.1 was that since the right of user acquisition had taken place as per the provisions of P&MP Act, 1962, the compensation would be received under Sections 10 and 11 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and not under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. 6. Based on this declaration of the competent authority, respondent No.1 registered a Miscellaneous (L.A.) Case No.16/2020 under Sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the P&MP Act, 1962 before the learned District Judge, Barpeta, wherein all other respondents except the appellants herein refrained from raising any contention. 7. The appellants stated before the competent authority that for the purposes of determination of compensation, the market value of the land would be assessed by adopting the methodology contemplated under the First Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Thereafter, the market value would be multiplied by a factor two for solatium which would be added to the compensation. This would allow the affected land- holder to get compensation at the rate of 10% i.e. 40% of the market value declared by the District Administration. It was also asserted by the appellants/GAIL that this methodology has been adopted in all the projects of the GAIL. 8. The matter travelled to the High Court, wherein before the learned Single Judge, the same stand was taken by the appellants. 9. We are in absolute conformity with the judgment and order impugned in the present appeal. However, we wish to indicate that from a reading of the brief, it gets reflected that there was some confusion amongst the Page No.# 5/10 parties with respect to the methodology of calculating the compensation and, therefore, this litigation ensued. The confusion got further exacerbated with the declaration of the authority that the compensation would be payable as per the P&MP Act, 1962. It was a short/cryptic communication and lacked the clarification that the methodology for calculating the market value of the land would be the one which is provided in the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. 10. The stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court has consistently been that though there is difference between “acquisition of land” and “acquisition for the user of land” and that compensation for acquisition of user of land for laying a gas pipeline would necessarily be based on the principles enunciated in Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962, which takes into account compensation for removal of trees or standing crops; for temporary severance of the land under which the pipeline has been laid from the other lands and for any injury to any other property, whether movable or immovable or the earnings of such persons caused by any such manner. Along with it, the appellants maintained, what would be payable as compensation is the 10% of the market value. 11. Since no methodology for calculating the market value has been provided in the P&MP Act, 1962, it was the stand of the appellants that the market value of the land would be assessed in accordance with RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and an equivalent amount of solatium would be added. Thereafter, 10% of the market value would also be provided to the land-holder which in case of the acquisition for user of land Page No.# 6/10 would be 40%. 12. The reason for giving 40% on the market value of the land, which includes solatium, is to be found in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. -Vs- GAIL India Limited & Ors.:: (2016) 7 SCC 565, wherein it has been held as follows: “12. The scheme of the Right to User Act envisages payment of compensation @ 10% of the market value of the land. The determination of market value is left to the competent authority. The submissions made at the Bar before us suggest as though the process of determination of the market value has not been completed in regard to most of the land being used for the pipeline. If that be so, the process of determination can be initiated and guided by the Government stipulating a circle rate/guideline value/minimum price which will be treated by the competent authority as the market value for purposes of determining the amount of compensation payable to the owners. Mr. Mehta’s submission that the market value could be determined as on 1-1- 2016 in order to avoid any prejudice to the landowners is a fair offer which we are inclined to accept, with a view to reducing any hardship to the farmers. We would therefore permit the State Government to stipulate the circle rates/guideline value/market value for purpose of determination of compensation payable towards acquisition of right to user of the affected landowners as on 1-1-2016. The circle rate/guideline/notification so issued shall then become the basis for the determination of the compensation payable to the landowners at the hands of the competent authority. Once that amount is calculated and determined by the competent authority, the landowners shall be entitled to an additional 30% of the amount so determined towards compensation. The procedure so adopted would, in our opinion, reduce any hardship to the landowners and bring about a certain amount of uniformity in the matter of determination and payment of compensation to the affected parties. There is no gainsaying that anyone who is not satisfied with the amount so determined and paid, shall be free to seek a reference to the District Court for determination of the true market value of the land in which the right to user has been acquired by the Government by getting a reference made under Section 10(2) of the Right to User Act. We make it clear that our direction regarding payment of 30% over and above the amount otherwise payable to the landowners is on the basis of the concession made before us by GAIL and shall not be deemed to be a part of the scheme under the Act.” (Emphasis provided) Page No.# 7/10 13. It appears that since then, the compensation for land user is being given at the rate of 10% of the market value plus 30%, which makes it 40%. With this clarification, the parties have become ad idem that the methodology for calculating the market value is the one which is provided in the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. 14. However, during the course of argument, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 has submitted that in accordance with Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, solatium will include, in all cases, interest for the period of commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment Study under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, in respect of such land, till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. He, therefore, submits that under the P&MP Act, 1962, what is payable as the rate of interest is only 6% per annum from the date on which compensation had to be deposited till the date of actual deposit. 15. In support of his contention, Mr. Choudhury has cited the decision of the Supreme Court in R.B. Dealers Private Limited -Vs- Metro Railway, Kolkata :: (2019) 20 SCC 658. Para No.4.1 of the afore-noted judgment reads as follows: “4.1. The relevant provisions of the 2013 Act are Sections 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. Section 26 of the Act provides for determination of market value of the land by the Collector. Section 27 of the Act provides for determination of the amount of compensation and Section 28 of the Act provides the parameters to be considered by the Collector in determination of the award. Section 29 of the Page No.# 8/10 Act provides for determination of the value of things attached to the land or building. Section 30 of the Act provides that the Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a ‘solatium’ amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount. Sub-section (3) of Section 30 further provides that in addition to the market value of the land provided under Section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award the amount calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4, in respect of such land, till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and the scheme of the Act, it is to be seen that before the final award is passed by the Collector, the Collector has to determine the market value of the land as provided under Section 26 of the Act. That, thereafter, after determination of the market value of the land as provided under Section 26 of the Act, the Collector has to determine the amount of compensation as per Section 27 of the Act, which includes the market value of the land as well as the value of all assets attached to the land. Therefore, the amount of compensation determined shall be including the market value of the land to be acquired (as per Section 26 of the 2013 Act) and the value of all assets attached to the land. The determination of the value of the things attached to the land or building shall be as per Section 29 of the 2013 Act. Over and above the amount of compensation so determined by the Collector as per Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the 2013 Act, at the time of the final award, the Collector has to impose a ‘solatium’ amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount, as per Sections 29 and 30 of the 2013 Act. The landowner whose land has been acquired shall also be entitled to in addition to the market value of the land provided under Section 26 of the Act, an amount calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on such market value. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and the scheme of the 2013 Act, the final award declared by the Collector shall be in three parts/components, namely, the amount of compensation (which shall include the market value of the land to be acquired and the value of the assets attached to the land); the solatium determined and payable under sub-section (1) of the Section 30 which shall be equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount (the market value + value of assets attached to the land) and the amount calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on such market value [as per sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act of 2013]. All the three components would be independent which shall ultimately form part of the final award.” (Emphasis provided) Page No.# 9/10 16. What Mr. Choudhury therefore contends is that the solatium would include not only the amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount, as per Sections 29 and 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, but would also include, as a component thereof, the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 17. The analogy drawn by Mr. Choudhury is not correct, for, an acquisition under the P&MP Act, 1962 does not provide for any Social Impact Assessment Study for such interest component to be added to the market value, unless there is a delay in the payment of the compensation, for which a land-holder is only entitled to 6% interest as per the P&MP Act, 1962. 18. It must be appreciated that in cases of acquisition of land under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the compensation would include market value plus equal value of solatium plus interest at the rate of 12% to be calculated from the date of publication of the notification of the Social Impact Study under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, till the date of the award of a Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In case of acquisition for user, interest at that rate would not be the component for the reason referred to above. 19. In fact, in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. -Vs- GAIL India Limited & Ors. (supra), it was conceded by the GAIL that apart from 10% compensation of market value, an additional 30% would be paid as compensation, which practice continues even today in cases of acquisition for land user under the P&MP Act, 1962. Page No.# 10/10 This, therefore, covers more than the interest component under Section 30(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. 20. Thus, we clarify that respondent No.1 as a land-holder would be entitled to compensation, which would be the market value of the land as assessed under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 plus equal amount of solatium and 40% (10%+30%) of the said amount. 21. The same methodology of calculation has been shown by the appellants in the supplementary affidavit filed on their behalf. However, in accordance with Section 11(2) of the P&MP Act, 1962, interest at the rate of 6% per annum would be payable from the date on which the compensation had to be deposited till the date of actual deposit. 22. Thus, without interfering with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the issue stands clarified and explained. 23. The present appeal thus stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant