Disposed

Salapu Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Nov 2021WP/24727/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging technical approval for tree felling to lay a pipeline. Holding that the competent authority determined compensation and an alternative remedy exists under Section 10(2) of the Act, the court directed the petitioners to approach the District Judge within ninety days.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; petitioners directed to approach District Judge under Section 10(2) of the Act within ninety days from today (05.11.2021); no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions clos

Salapu Ramu Vs The State of Andhra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24727 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material available on record.

¶5

The order passed by the District Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam-fourth respondent herein vide proceedings in Roc.No.1548/2021/54, dated 24.09.2021, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶6

The essence of the case of the petitioners is that, without deciding and paying the compensation to the petitioners, fourth respondent herein accorded technical approval for felling of Red Sander trees existing in the lands of the petitioners covered by Sy.Nos.13/5, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4, 71/6, 71/9 and 73/4 of Jerripothulapalem Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶7

Fourth respondent herein granted technical approval for the purpose of felling of the Red Sander trees for laying pipeline by the third respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam running from Paradeep of Orissa State to Hyderabad of Telangana State.

¶8

According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners of the subject lands wherein they planted the Red Sander trees. On

¶9

¶10

AVSS,J W.P.No.24727 of 2021

¶11

07.10.2021, petitioners made a representation to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam-fifth respondent herein and also to the District Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam-fourth respondent herein and the third respondent-competent authority, saying that the amount of compensation paid to the lands and the trees was inadequate and entitled for the amounts as per FSR rates fixed by the Forest Department. The said representation was followed by a legal notice, dated 11.10.2021, got issued by the petitioners through their counsel.

¶12

Counter-affidavit of the third respondent has been filed inter alia stating that, for the purpose of laying the subject pipeline, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India issued notifications under Sections 3 (1) and 6(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) on 06.09.2017 and 30.01.2018 and, for the said purpose, lands of the petitioners have also been identified. It is further stated that, at the request of the third respondent, the Forest Department conducted survey in the presence of the petitioners and noted down the details of the trees and vide proceedings in Rc.No.1548/2019/S4, dated 15.12.2020, of the fourth respondent, pursuant to the process of enumeration and assessment of the value of the trees undertaken by the Forest Range Officer, Visakhapatnam, addressed a letter to the third respondent for taking further action. It is also stated that based on the report of the Forest Department, compensation has been

¶13

¶14

AVSS,J W.P.No.24727 of 2021

¶15

determined by the competent authority considering 100% solatium. It is further stated that the competent authority passed an Award on 03.06.2021 and the payments were also made towards Trees and Right to User compensation for the land. At paragraph No.9 of the counter-affidavit of the third respondent, the details as regards the payment are also furnished.

¶16

There is also no dispute as regards payments made to the petitioners herein in terms of the Award, dated 03.06.2021. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that, if the petitioners herein are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 10 (1) of the Act, petitioners herein are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the District Judge for enhancement of the compensation.

¶17

Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act imposes obligation on the competent authority to determine compensation. In the instant case, the competent authority passed an Award on 03.06.2021. Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Act stipulates that, if the amount of compensation, determined by the competent authority under sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of compensation shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge, within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by the District Judge.

¶18

¶19

AVSS,J W.P.No.24727 of 2021

¶20

According Rule 5 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963, framed by the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 of the Act, the limitation for filing an application before the District Judge in accordance with Section 10 (2) of the Act is ninety days from the date of receipt of intimation from the competent authority under Rule 4 (3) of the Rules. Rule 4 of the Rules deals with filing of claims for compensation and Rule 4 (3) of the Rules imposes obligation on the competent authority to inform the parties about the amount of compensation fixed under the Act.

¶21

In the instant case, it is the specific submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, though the amounts were paid to the petitioners herein, the third respondent-competent authority did not furnish the copy of the Award and the same is furnished to him today in the Court. The said factual aspect is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶22

Having regard to the provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to supra and the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners herein, under the above provisions of law, for enhancement of the compensation determined by the competent authority, Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioners herein to approach the learned jurisdictional District Judge, under Section 10 (2) of the Act, against the Award, dated 03.06.2021, passed by the third respondent-competent authority. It

¶23

¶24

AVSS,J W.P.No.24727 of 2021

¶25

is also made clear that the petitioners herein can avail the said remedy within a period of ninety days from today as they have received a copy of the Award today, i.e. on 05.11.2021.

¶26

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶28

A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶29

05^th November, 2021. Tsy

Salapu Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salapu Ramu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Abdul Rawoof Vs S Purushotham Reddy

Lagudu Ramaswamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tarigopula Sanjeeva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Chenamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Nagarajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolla Venkata Naga Prasad. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh.