Nachna-Hrrl Refinary Pachpadra (Rajasthan), Pani Pipe Line Project, Hpcl Rajasthan Refinery Limited And Others vs Jagmala Ram And Another

1. Nachna-HRRL Refinary Pachpadra (Rajasthan), Pani Pipe Line Project, Hpcl Rajasthan Refinery Limited, Tel Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Lal Kothi Vistar, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur-302005. 2. HPCL Rajasthan Refinery Limited, Village Saiyaji Roopji Kanthwada And Sambhra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer-344032. ----Appellants Versus 1. Jagmala Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Village Kharapar, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer, Rajasthan. 2. Dala Ram S/o Shri Dhura Ram, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Kharapar, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Govind Suthar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

26/08/2022

The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by

the appellants (respondents before the Single Bench) for assailing

the stay order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Single

Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8304/2022 in

favour of the respondent-writ petitioners in relation to the land

acquired by the appellants for the purposes of the water pipeline

being laid for the Pachpadra Refinery.

(Downloaded on 26/08/2022 at 10:58:35 PM)

(2 of 4) [SAW-703/2022]

Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted

by Mr. Govind Suthar, representing the appellants, urged that the

Government of India has exercised its statutory powers for

acquiring the land for the purposes of establishing the refinery and

as a consequence, the right of usage of the land has been vested

in the refinery, which is a project of national importance. He

submits that the only objection advanced on behalf of the

petitioners before the learned Single Bench was that the

authorities concerned took the thumb impressions/signatures of

the petitioners on the acquisition notices by keeping them in dark

and hence, the acquisition proceedings are vitiated. In this

regard, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this

court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Bhaniyana Vs. Union of

India (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15018/2021 decided on

27.10.2021). He has also placed reliance on the Hon'ble

Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ichchapur Industrial

Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Competent Authority, Oil and

Natural Gas Commission & Ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 42] and urged

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has clearly

observed that an oil refinery is a project of national importance

and any individual inconvenience has to yield to the national

interest.

He urges that the objections raised by the petitioner in

the writ petition are unsustainable. If at all the petitioners are

aggrieved of the acquisition order/quantification of the

compensation, the statutory remedy of appeal is provided under

the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') and they would have

(Downloaded on 26/08/2022 at 10:58:35 PM) (3 of 4) [SAW-703/2022]

to avail the same. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in these

circumstances.

Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh,

representing the respondents-writ petitioners, vehemently and

fervently urged that as a matter of fact, notices of acquisition

proceedings were never served on the petitioners or their family

members and as such, the entire acquisition is bad in the eyes of

law.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

On the face of it, the submission of Mr. Birkh that the

notices of acquisition proceedings were not served upon the writ

petitioners or their family members is incorrect and untenable. In

this regard, we may take note of the fact that even in the

pleadings of the writ petition, all that the petitioners have alleged

is that the thumb impressions/signatures on the notices were

procured by keeping them in dark and giving them an allurement

that water connection would be provided to their houses. Ex

facie, this plea made in the writ petition is in conflict with the oral

submissions advanced by the counsel for the writ petitioners in

this court. It is trite to mention here that admittedly, the notice

for acquisition of land to lay down the water pipeline for the

refinery through the village of the petitioners was published in

newspapers and a proclamation thereof was also made by public

announcement. The compensation awardable to all the land

holders has been assessed after following the process prescribed

under the Act of 2013. This assessment includes the component

of loss caused to the standing crops. It at all the writ petitioners

(Downloaded on 26/08/2022 at 10:58:35 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-703/2022]

are aggrieved by the quantification of compensation, they can

always avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the

Act of 2013. However, we are of the firm opinion that there is no

justification for passing a restraint order against the appellants

herein from using the land acquired as per the purpose of

acquisition. The oil refinery is a project of national importance

and thus, personal inconveniences have to yield to the national

interest. Thus, the impugned order dated 10.06.2022 passed by

the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained and is hereby

reversed.

The appeal is allowed, accordingly.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

49-Pramod/-

(Downloaded on 26/08/2022 at 10:58:35 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)