Dilip Manikrao Dhande and Others v. Union of India Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2024WP/404/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 10(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962, contending that restrictive use of their land over a laid pipeline and meager compensation violate Article 300A. The Court issued notice to respondents returnable on February 14, 2024; service waived.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dilip Manikrao Dhande and Others vs Union of India Thr. Its… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 WP404-24.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 404/2024

¶4

(DILIP MANIKRAO DHANDE & OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS)

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Shri T.R. Kumar with Smt. S.V. Taksande, counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶8

D ATE : JANUARY 17, 2024 .

¶9

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶10

The challenge in the writ petition is to the constitutional validity of sub-Section 4 of Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962.

¶11

The counsel for the petitioners would urge that the land of the petitioners was used for laying down underground pipeline for which the provision of award of compensation is made under the aforesaid Act. According to the counsel for the petitioners once the pipeline is laid, the petitioners-land owners would be put to restrictive use of the said land since they can neither carry out any permanent development over the said land nor they can plant the fruit bearing trees over it. As such, the land in question which is used for laying down the pipeline would be almost useless for the petitioners. The award of compensation under the aforesaid provision is too meager when compared to what has been provided under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In the aforesaid backdrop, he would urge that the constitutional right of the petitioners under Article 300A is violated by giving effect to the aforesaid provision as the petitioners are unable to enjoy the land in question.

¶12

Issue notice to the respondents returnable on February 14, 2024.

¶13

Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Shri N.S. Deshpande waives service of notice for the respondent no.1.

¶14

2 WP404-24.odt

¶15

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri H.D. Marathe waives service of notice for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶16

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶17

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶18

APTE

¶19

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/01/2024 11:32:56

Dilip Manikrao Dhande and Others v. Union of India Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dilip Manikrao Dhande and Others v. Union of India Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri. Ashok Kamlakar Maheshgawli vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. Mumbai and Others

Prasad S/O Rajendra Pawar and Others vs S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member Secretary, Yavamal and Another

Sarika D/O Madhukarrao Paturde (After Marriage Sarika W/O Satish Aghadte) vs the State of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Others

Aaliya Farhat Waseem Farhat vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Urban Devpt. Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Magaswargiya Gramin Mahila Shikshan Sanstha, Yenwa Thr. Secretary, Pundlik T. Bagde vs the Education Officer (Sec.) Zp, Nagpur and Another

Gumphabai Wd/O Ashok Aade vs the Divisional Commissioner Officer, Amravati (Development Planning Branch), Amravati and Ors.