C/SCA/20427/2015 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20427 of 2015 ============================================= MAVJIBHAI MULJIBHAI VAGHELA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ============================================= Appearance: MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ============================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 12/01/2026 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased petitioner stand substituted vide the order in Civil Application (For Bringing Legal Heirs) No.01 of 2025 passed today itself. We further proceed with the hearing of the main matter. 2. The present petition presented on 08.12.2025, is pending for about 11 years. On the presentation of the writ petition, vide order dated 18.02.2016, on consideration of the stand of the respondent about laying down pipelines for carrying water through the land in question, it was noted by this Court that the proceedings for acquisition of the right of way in terms of the Gujarat Water and Gas Pipelines p. 1 C/SCA/20427/2015 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000 (for short, the Act’ 2000”) had been initiated by publication of the noti昀椀cations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act’ 2000. On the objection raised by the petitioner vide communication dated 25.03.2014, the petitioner was granted personal hearing and his objections were rejected. The respondents State in the a昀昀idavit in reply had pointed out that the petitioner had remained present before the Authority on several occasion and was also heard. 3. It was also noted therein that the objections of the original petitioner in the representation was for changing the alignment of the pipeline so that it may pass through the border of the land and not from the center thereof. Pursuant thereto, a technical committee was constituted and upon inquiry, the committee gave its opinion suggesting that it was not feasible to change the course of the pipeline. 4. It was also noted by this Court in the order dated 18.02.2016 while refusing to grant an interim order in favour of the petitioner that the entire project involves an estimated cost of Rs.550 crores and is an important link between Morbi (Macchu Dam) and Aji-III Dam and any disruption of the project would crucially a昀昀ect the water supply scheme. The order categorically records that during the pendency of the writ petition, the pipeline through the lands of the petitioner had already been laid. 5. After refusal of the prayer for grant of interim order dated 18.02.2016, it appears that the writ petition has not p. 2 C/SCA/20427/2015 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 been pursued. The father of the newly substituted petitioners, namely the original petitioner had died on 06.05.2021. The application seeking for substitution has been 昀椀led with substantial delay, though the same has been allowed under a separate order passed today itself. However, the fact remains that the work of installation of pipeline had already been completed as early as in the year 2015 – 16 after consideration of the objections of the petitioner about feasibility of the project. 6. After a period of 11 years, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the substituted petitioners about the 昀氀aw in the procedure of acquisition for laying of the pipeline, no interference can be made. 7. We may further note that work of laying of the pipeline is governed by the provisions of the the Gujarat Water and Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000. As per the provisions contained therein, there is a requirement of publication of the noti昀椀cations for acquisition of the right of use in any private land for the purpose of laying pipelines under the said Act. 8. As noted hereinabove, the process of laying of pipeline was completed after publication of the noti昀椀cations under Sections 3 and 6 of the Act’ 2000. The challenge to the acquisition noti昀椀cations dated 15.05.2014 and 19.09.2014 under Sections 3 and 6 of the Act’ 2000 was brought by way of the amendment sought in the year 2016 that too on the premise that the acquisition proceedings are in violation of p. 3 C/SCA/20427/2015 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 the principles of natural justice and the objections 昀椀led by the petitioner have not been considered in the right spirit. 9. We may note that only paragraph No. ‘18A’ has been added by way of amendment, wherein the ground taken is that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in laying the pipelines during the pendency of the writ petition is absolutely illegal. No plausible grounds have been raised apart from the denial of opportunity of hearing to the original petitioner, to challenge the acquisition of right of user by way of the noti昀椀cations published under the Act’ 2000. 10. The other contention of the petitioner is that since the petitioner had not accepted the compensation from the concerned authority and hence, the prayer for status quo ante be considered. 11. The present is a case where the pipeline has been laid by following the due procedure under the Act’ 2000 for the water supply scheme, as an important link between Morbi (Macchu Dam) and Aji-III Dam. The only objection raised by the petitioner during the course of hearing a昀昀orded under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act’ 2000 was that the alignment of water pipeline was required to be changed, which was duly considered by the competent authority by constituting a committee, which had submitted the report. After completion of the process of acquisition, which was initiated in the year 2014, the present petition had been 昀椀led in the year 2015. Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/20427/2015 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 12. In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed as to when the compensation for the right of user in the land in question has been determined. As there is a complete silence in the writ petition about the determination of the compensation under Section 8 of the Act’ 2000, from the only statement that the petitioner has not accepted the compensation determined by the competent authority, atleast, it is evident that the proceedings for acquisition of the right of use in the land in question had been culminated with the determination of compensation under the provisions of the Act’ 2000. 13. Sections 10 and 11 of the Act’ 2000 pertains to determination of compensation by the competent authority. As the acquisition proceedings had been brought to its logical end with the determination of the compensation and there is an acceptance in that regard in the writ petition with the assertion that the original petitioner had refused to accept the compensation, we do not 昀椀nd a 昀椀t case to entertain on the validity of the acquisition noti昀椀cations. 14. In this scenario, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to restore status quo ante is found to be without any force and hence, rejected. 15. In view of the above, all the prayers made in the writ petition are liable to be rejected. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. p. 5 C/SCA/20427/2015 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 16. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the present petition will not come in the way of the substituted petitioners, namely the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner to claim the disbursement of compensation, if the compensation had not been received by the original owner. (SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) SAHIL S. RANGER p. 6 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/01/2026 11:52:16