Allowed

M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd. v. Sri Rajanna

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024WP/598/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by Petronet MHB Ltd. against an order granting solatium and interest to land claimants. The Court held that under the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, Section 10(4) excludes the award of solatium and interest, which are specific to the Land Acquisition Act and not applicable when only the right of user is acquired.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order awarding solatium and interest was set aside in that respect, while the determination of compensation was confirmed.

M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd. Vs Sri Rajanna — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2009 (LA-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

M/S. PETRONET MHB LTD. NO.332, 1^ST FLOOR, DARUS SALAM BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. REP. BY SRI. UDAYA PAI, MANAGER- OPERATIONS.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. B.K. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KUMBARAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶11

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE - MANGALORE PIPELINE PROJECT NO.332, 1^ST FLOOR, DARUS SALAM BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,, BENGALURU - 560 052.

¶12

H. RAMANJINAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶13

¶14

3(A). SRI. VISWANATH

¶15

3(B). SRI. PRAKASH 3(C). SRI. VENKATESH

¶16

RESPONDENTS 3(A) TO 3(C) ARE R/AT KURUBARAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶17

SRI. B. NANJAPPA S/O LATE BYLAPPA AGE: MAJOR R/AT MATHAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶18

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAHUCHAIAH

¶19

LOHITHA NAGAR,

¶20

NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶21

SRI. VEERANNA S/O KEMPABITAIAH VISWESWARAPURA, NELAMANGALA POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶22

SRI. CHENNAVEERAIAH S/O LATE NANJAPPA THORENAGASANDRA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶23

SRI. GANGAIAH S/O GANGARANGAIAH BASAVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶24

¶25

SRI. SANJEEVAIAH S/O LATE NINGAPPA KODAGI, HIRUMALAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶26

SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH S/O SIDDALINGAIAH RAMAPALYA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶27

SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O MOTAIAH BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶28

SRI. B. SIDDALINGAIAH S/O SRI. BASAPPA THORENAGASANDRA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶29

SMT. RAMALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE KEMPARANGAIAH VISWESWARAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶30

SRI. SANJEEVAIAH S/O NINGAPPA THORENAGASANDRA DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶31

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O REDDAPPA THORENAGASANDRA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶32

¶33

SRI. RANGAPPA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA BASAVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶34

SRI. K.N. NANJAPPA S/O LATE KEMPAIAH BASAVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,

¶35

BENGALURU NORTH.

¶36

B.T. VENKATACHALAIAH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶37

18(a). JAYAMMA

¶38

W/O LATE B.T. VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶39

18(b). SUDHA

¶40

D/O LATE B.T. VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶41

RESPONDENTS 18(a) AND 18(b) ARE R/O BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

¶42

NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶43

SRI. K. NANDAKUMAR S/O K. KEMPAIAH REP. BY G.P.A. HOLDER K. YADAVA MURTHY KUMBARAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶44

NANJAPPA

¶45

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶46

¶47

20(a). SHIVKUMAR S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶48

20(b). RAJAMMA W/O CHIKKAHANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶49

20(c). SHIVARAJU S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶50

20(d). NANJUNDA SWAMY S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶51

R20(a) TO R20(d) ARE R/AT MATTAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶52

SRI. DASAPPA S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA HURULICHIKKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶53

SRI. ANJANAPPA S/O CHIKKATHERAPPA BASAVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH.

¶54

SRI. GANGARAJU S/O GANGAIAH SIDAMI PALYA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶55

SRI. S. SIDDAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAIAH

¶56

¶57

HUSKUR, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶58

SRI. B.A. JAYARAMAIAH S/O ANJINEGOWDA, BASAVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,

¶59

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶60

SRI. GANGAHANUMAIAH S/O GANGAIAH

¶61

BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶62

SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA

¶63

BYADARAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶64

SRI. BYLAPPA

¶65

S/O HANUMANTHAIAH SAIDAMI PALYA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶66

SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O LATE MUDAIAH BYRASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶67

SRI. T. THIMMAIAH S/O THAMMAIAH THORENAGASANDRA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶68

¶69

SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O MARISWAMAPPA THORENAGASANDRA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶70

SRI. HANUMAIAH S/O MUDDAVEERAIAH BYRASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶71

SRI. CHIKKAHANUMAIAH S/O THIMMAPPA BYRASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶72

SRI. DOONGAR CHANDH PARMER S/O BALAK RAMJI PARMER NO.1011, 24^TH MAIN, 15^TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶73

SRI. SHANTHAPPA S/O NANJAPPA THORENAGASANDRA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶74

SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O DODDABETTAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶75

¶76

RAJANNA S/O LATE DODDAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DODDABETTAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶77

SRI. KUMBI NARASIMHAIAH S/O NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O HEBBALALU VILLAGE, THIMMASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶78

SRI. CHIKKANNA S/O DODAMAGADAIAH AGE: MAJOR R/AT MALLIGUNTE VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶79

SRI. MAGADAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGE: MAJOR R/O MALLIGUNTE VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK.

¶80

SMT. USHAKUMARI W/O HARSHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGUNTE VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK.

¶81

SRI. B.N. SUBRAMANYA SETTY S/O LATE B.V. NAGARATHNAM SETTY R/AT MYSURU STORES, KUDUR, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶82

¶83

MUDDAIAH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶84

43(a). SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶85

43(b). SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶86

43(c). GANGAHANUMAIAH S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS. R43(a) TO R43(c) ARE R/O BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶87

SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O RAMAIAH BETHANEGERE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶88

SMT. H.B. MANJULA W/O A.B. PUTTARAJU HUSKUR, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶89

SRI. TIMMAPPAGOWDA S/O MUDDAVEERAIAH AGE: MAJOR BYRASANDRA, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶90

SMT. LEELAVATHI D/O RAMANNA AGE : MAJOR

¶91

¶92

HEBBALALU VILLAGE MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶93

SRI. HANUMAIAH S/O MUNIYAPPA BYRASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶94

SRI. KEMPATHIMMAIAH S/O MUDDAVEERAIAH BYRASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶95

RAMAIAH

¶96

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶97

50(a). SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶98

50(b). MANJUNATHA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶99

R50(a) AND R50(b) ARE R/AT THORE NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶100

CHOWDAPPA S/O RAMAIAH KODAG THIRUMALAPURA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶101

SRI. RAJANNA S/O SIDDABASAPPA

¶102

¶103

HUSKUR, DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶104

SMT. MAYARANI R. NO.73/1 (118) 'PRASHANTH', 15^TH CROSS MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055.

¶105

SRI. LAKKANNA S/O GANGABYRAIAH OBANAYAKANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶106

SRI. NANJEGOWDA S/O BYRAIAH OBANAYAKANAHALLI , KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶107

SRI. CHIKKABYRAIAH S/O NANJAIAH OBANAYAKANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶108

SMT. S. KANCHANA BAI S/O CHANDROJI RAO GPA HOLDER BY SHIVAJI RAO KULIPURA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶109

SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O GANGABYRAIAH GANDARGOLIPURA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶110

SRI. UMESH S/O VEEREGOWDA

¶111

¶112

VEERARAGHAVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI,

¶113

NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶114

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O BETTAIAH HUSKUR, HUCHAIANA PALYA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶115

SMT. MAYARANI R.

¶116

NO.73/1 (118) 'PRASHANTH', 15^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,

¶117

BENGALURU -55.

¶118

SRI. B.K. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O B.V. KATERAPPA AGE : MAJOR R/O DODDABETTA HALLI, YELANAKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶119

SRI. RAJANNA

¶120

S/O LATE CHIKKA THAMMANNA AGE : MAJOR R/O DODDABETTA HALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶121

SRI. V. NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE VEERABHADRAPPA AGE :MAJOR R/O DODDABETTAHALLI, YELHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶122

SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGE : MAJOR R/O DODDABETTAHALLI,

¶123

¶124

YELHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶125

SRI. MUNIMALLAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGE : MAJOR R/O DODDABETTAHALLI, YELHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶126

SRI. JALENDRAPPA S/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGE : MAJOR R/O DODDABETTAHALLI, YELHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶127

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA AGE: MAJOR DODDABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶128

SRI. K. CHIKKAVENKATE GOWDA S/O SRI. B.V. KATERAPPA AGE : MAJOR R/O DODDABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶129

SRI. B.K. SEETHARAMAIAH S/O LATE KATERAPPA AGE : MAJOR R/O DODDABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶130

SRI. B.K. SHIVANNA S/O LATE B.V. KATERAPPA AGE : MAJOR

¶131

¶132

	R/O DODDABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
72.	BYRAHANUMEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
72(a).	BYRAMMA M/O LATE BYRAHANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS.
72(b).	LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE BYRAHANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
72(c).	B.V. RAJANNA S/O LATE BYRAHANUMEGOWDA AGE : MAJOR
72(d).	B.V. BYREGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
72(d)(i).	D. MALATHI W/O LATE B.V. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
72(d)(ii).	B.V. ASHOKA S/O LATE B.V. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
72(d)(iii).	RAMYA B.V. D/O LATE B.V. BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, MINOR, REP. BY HER MOTHER D. MALATHI - R72(d)(i)
72(d)(iv).	B.V. CHANDRASHEKAR GOWDA S/O LATE BYRAHANUMEGOWDA AGE : MAJOR.

¶133

¶134

72(d)(v). VENKATESH S/O LATE BYRAHANUMEGOWDA AGE : MAJOR R72(a) TO R72(d)(v) ARE R/AT VEERARAGHAVANA PALYA KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT. 73. MUKUNDA S/O MUNITHAYAPPA AGE : MAJOR 74. H.M. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MUNITHAYAPPA AGE : MAJOR R73 & R74 ARE RESIDENTS OF HOODI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 75. H.M. LOKESH S/O MUNITHAYAPPA AGE : MAJOR 76. H.M. CHANDASHEKAR S/O MUNITHAYAPPA AGE : MAJOR 77. H.M. RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O MUNITHAYAPPA AGE : MAJOR R75 TO R77 ARE R/AT HOODI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 78. SRI. GORIAPPA S/O BYREGOWDA

¶135

¶136

BYRASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶137

RAMAIAH S/O MARAIAH AGE: MAJOR.

¶138

GANGADHARAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH R/O YELACHAGERE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶139

SRI. KEMPANNA S/O GANGAIAH YELACHAGERE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶140

SRI. KEMPAHANUMAIAH S/O GANGAIAH

¶141

YELACHAGERE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶142

SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU S/O HANUMEGOWDA YELACHAGERE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK

¶143

SRI. MAREGOWDA S/O PUTTAIAH AGE : MAJOR BISKUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK.

¶144

SRI. C. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O CHANNANJAPPA AGE : MAJOR ARASINAGUNTE VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK.

¶145

SMT. GANGAHANUMAKKA W/O GANGAVENKATAPPA

¶146

¶147

AGE : MAJOR ARASINAGUNTE VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK.

¶148

SRI. B.R. KODAPPA S/O RUDRAIAH AGE : MAJOR BISCOOR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶149

SRI. MUDDAIAH S/O DEVAIAH AGE : MAJOR BISKOOR VILLAGE MAGADI TALUK.

¶150

SRI. NANJUNDAIAH S/O NANJUNDAIAH AGE : MAJOR R/O KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK.

¶151

SRI. CHIKKAMUNNARASAPPA S/O CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH AGE : MAJOR R/O ARASINAGUNTE VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶152

SRI. BEERAIAH S/O GANGACHIKKAIAH, MUPPENAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶153

SRI. B.M.H. SATHYANARAYANA RAO S/O LATE HIRIYANNAPPA MUPPENAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶154

¶155

SRI. GANGABEERAIAH S/O MARIYAPPA MUPPENAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶156

SRI. DODDAIAH S/O GANGAPPA MUPPENAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶157

NARASIMHAIAH

¶158

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶159

95(A). SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH.

¶160

95(B). SRI. RAMESH

¶161

S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH.

¶162

95(C). SMT. UMADEVI

¶163

D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH.

¶164

R95(A) TO R95(C) ARE R/AT YELACHAGERE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶165

SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH S/O MUDLAIAH MUPPENAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶166

SRI. A. PRASANNA SIMHA S/O ASWATHNARAYAN SHASTRI, BYRASANDRA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK.

¶167

¶168

NADEER KHAN S/O BASHEER KHAN AGE : MAJOR.

¶169

MEHABOOB KHAN S/O BASHEER KHAN AGE : MAJOR. 100. AKBAR KHAN S/O BASHEER KHAN AGE : MAJOR REPRESENTED BY G.P.A. HOLDER

¶170

BHASHEER KHAN S/O JALEEL KHAN KANAKENAHALLI.

¶171

R98 TO R101 ARE R/AT YANNAGERE POST, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 102. SRI. KAKAIAH S/O RUDRAIAH YENNAGERE POST, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶172

M.N. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O NARASIMHAIAH.

¶173

M.N. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O NARASIMHAIAH.

¶174

M.N. NAGARAJU S/O NARASIMHAIAH.

¶175

R103 TO R105 ARE R/AT MUPPENAHALLI,

¶176

¶177

	SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,S BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
106.	SRI. THIRUMALAIAH
	S/O YALAKAPPA THATTEKERE, SOLUR HOBLI,
	MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
107.	SRI. G. SRINIVASAIAH
	S/O GANGAPPA THATTEKERE, SOLUR HOBLI,
	MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
108.	SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH
	S/O LATE SIDDAIAH KANAKENAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
109.	SRI. B. NARASIMHAIAH
	S/O BOMMAIAH OMBATHANAGUNTE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
110.	SRI. BEERALINGAIAH
	S/O GANGAIAH AGE : MAJOR SYDAMIPALYA,
	DASANAPURA HOBLI,
	BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
111.	SRI. MAHANTHAIAH S/O BOMMAIAH
	OMBATHANAGUNTE,
	SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
	BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶178

¶179

112.	SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE NARASAPPA THATTEKERE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
113.	SEETHAMMA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
113(A).	KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
113(B).	SIDDEGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
113(B)(a).	SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
113(B)(b).	SRI. SUDHEENDRA GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
113(B)(c).	SMT. BHAVYA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
113(B)(d).	SMT. DIVYA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA.
	R113(A) TO R113(B)(d) ARE R/AT YENNAGERE (KUPPEMALA). SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
114.	SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA R/O KUPPEMALA, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
	BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶180

¶181

KAMBAIAH S/O BOMMAIAH R/O OMBATHANAGUTE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 116. GANGAHANUMAIAH @ BHARAT S/O BOMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O NO.410, 10^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 070. 117. SMT. CHIKKAHANUMAKKA W/O CHIKKAIAH MUPPENAHALLI, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 118. SRI. GANGALAKSHMAIAH S/O KAMBAIAH THATTEKERE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 119. SRI. C.B. BHEEMASENA S/O LATE BEERALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 120. SMT. SHESHAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.286, 11^TH MAIN ROAD INDIRANAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038. 121. SRI. CHIKKANNA S/O CHIKKANNA AGE : MAJOR

¶182

¶183

	R/O KAMASANDRA, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
122.	SRI. S. SIDDAGANGAIAH
	S/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGE : MAJOR
	R/O BISKOOR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
123.	VENKATAIAH
	SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
123(A).	SMT. CHIKKAMMA
	W/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
123(B).	SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
123(C).	MANJULA
	D/O LATE VENKATAIAH
	AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
123(D).	RAMESH
	S/O LATE VENKATAIAH
	AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
123(E).	RAJU S/O LATE VENKATAIAH
	AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
123(F).	RAVIKUMAR
	S/O LATE VENKATAIAH
	AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
	R123(A) TO R123(F) ARE
	R/AT BYRAPURA DHAKALE,
	KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK.

¶184

¶185

SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O NANJUNDAIAH AGE : MAJOR R/O MUTTASAGARA VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 125. GANGANNA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 125(A). SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE GANGANNA AGE : MAJOR. 125(B). RANGASWAMAIAH SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 125(B)(a). PADMA RANGASWAMAIAH W/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH AGE : MAJOR R125(A) TO R125(B)(a) ARE R/AT MALLIGUNTE VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 126. SRI. CHIKKAHONNASHAMAIAH S/O GANGAIAH AGE : MAJOR R/O K.G. KRISHNAPURA VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 127. SRI. MUDDARANGAIAH S/O RANGAIAH AGE : MAJOR R/O BISKOOR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶186

¶187

128.	SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O MUDDAIAH
	ARASINAGUNTE VILLAGE,
	SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
	BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
129.	SRI. CHIKKARANGASWAMY
	S/O MAGADAIAH, AGE : MAJOR
	YELLAPURA VILLAGE,
	MAGADI TALUK,
	BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
130.	SRI. T. GANGAIAH
	S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH
	HAJIPALYA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
131.	BYRAMMA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
131(A).	SRI. GANGAIAH S/O GOVINDAIAH.
131(B).	SRI. MUDALAIAH S/O GOVINDAIAH.
131(C).	SRI. RAJANNA
	S/O GOVINDAIAH.
	R131(A) TO R131(C) ARE R/AT HAJIPALYA
	KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
	BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
132.	MOHAMMED ALLAUDIN
	S/O ABDUL RAHAMAN
	M/S. PRINCE DRY CLEANERS,
	NO.9, CBI OFFICE ROAD,

¶188

¶189

VASANTHAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR,

¶190

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶191

SRI. S. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE SOLLIGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS KACHARAKANAHALLI, NADAVATHI POST, VIA KADGODU, BENGALURU - 560 067.

¶192

SRI. RAJANNA S/O RAMAIAH BETHANAGERE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

¶193

B.M. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE CHIKKAPPAYA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT DODABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶194

B.M. MUNEGOWDA

¶195

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O DODABETTAHALLI, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.

¶196

SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O RAJENDRA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT ADUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶197

138. VENKATAPPA S/O SANJEEVAPPA

¶198

¶199

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT BILISHIVALE, DODAGUBBI POST, BENGALURU.

¶200

SRI. MUNISONNEGOWDA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT THANISANDRA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶201

SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA S/O SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT BILISHIVALE, DODAGUBBI POST, BENGALURU. 141. SRI. S. RAGHU S/O LATE P. SIDDARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.1/81, LINGARAJAPURAM BENGALURU - 560 084.

¶202

….RESPONDENTS

¶203

(BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. S.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R11, R44 & R101; SRI. N.J. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R37; SRI. SANGAMESH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R62 TO R65 AND R67 TO R71; SRI. K. VENKATEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R72(A TO C) AND R72(D)(i, ii, iv & v); SRI. H.V. RAMANCHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R73 TO 77; SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R116 & R119; SRI. AMRESH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R120; SRI. VISHWANATH R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R132; SRI. ZAMEER AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R133;

¶204

¶205

RESPONDENTS NO.1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 TO 17, 18(A) & (B), 19, 20 (A TO D), 21 TO 26, 28 TO 36, 38 TO 42, 43 (A TO C), 45, 46, 48, 49, 50(A & B), 51, 52, 54 TO 60, 66, 78 TO 84, 86, 88 TO 100, 102 TO 112, 113 (A & B), 113(B)(a) TO 113(B)(d), 114, 115, 117, 123(A TO F), 124, 125(A), 126 TO 128, 130, 131(A TO C) 134 TO 141 ARE SERVED - UNRERESENTED;

¶206

NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS 9, 27, 53, 61, 3(A TO C), 95 (A to C), 125(B)(a) IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 19.02.2018; NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS 47, 85, 87, 121, 122, 129 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 18.04.2024; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.118 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 18.09.2024.

¶207

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 30^TH OCTOBER, 2008 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF GRANTING SOLATIUM AND INTEREST TO THE RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS IN ACCORDENCE WITH SECTION 23(1-A) AND SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT; DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS IS NOT ENTITLED FOR SOLATIUM AND INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 23(1-A) AND SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AS OBSERVED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶208

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶209

CAV ORDER

¶210

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH)

¶211

In this writ petition, the petitioner-Company is assailing the judgment and award dated 30^th October, 2008 (Annexure-A)

¶212

¶213

passed by the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in respect of granting solatium and interest to the respondent/claimants as per Section 23(1-A) read with Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶214

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner-Company, is formed to distribute petroleum products and to transport the same from Mangalore Refinery at Mangaluru to the Oil Marketing Company Terminals at Devanagonthi Village in Bengaluru and the cost of the project was Rs.640 Crores.

¶215

It is also stated in the writ petition that, the petitioner-Company is the beneficiary of the acquisition of land by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had initiated acquisition proceedings for the purpose of acquiring land for the petitioner-Company as per the provisions contained under the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 with Rules 1963 (herein, after referred to as ‘Act-1962).

¶216

It is pleaded in the writ petition that, the Competent Authority had issued the Notification under Section 3 of the Act-

¶217

¶218

1962 to acquire the land for the benefit of the petitionerCompany, issuing declaration of acquisition of right of user in the land as per Section 6 of the Act-1962. It is also stated in the writ petition that, as per Section 10(1) of the Act-1962, the claimants are entitled for compensation and in the event, if the claimants are aggrieved of the meagre compensation awarded under Section 10(1) of the Act-1962, it is open for the claimants to approach the District Judge under Section 10(2) of the Act-1962, seeking reference for enhancement of compensation.

¶219

It is further pleaded in the writ petition that, the claimants/private respondents herein have filed application, seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 10(2) of the Act-1962 before the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in the impugned proceedings and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru by order dated 30^th October, 2008 (Annexure-A), confirmed the compensation awarded by the competent authority and held that, in addition to the compensation awarded, the claimants are also entitled for the solatium and interest in accordance with Section 23A read with Section 28 of the Land

¶220

¶221

Acquisition Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitionerCompany preferred this writ petition.

¶222

parties.

¶223

Sri. B.K. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company invited the attention of the Court to the scheme of the Act-1962 and argued that, the subject land was for laying pipelines for transport of Petroleum and Minerals. He further submitted that, Sections 3 and 6 of the Act-1962, provides for issuing of notifications with regard to declaring that the land to be acquired; and Section 10 of the Act-1962 provided for awarding compensation to the land loosers. Referring to the language employed under Section 10(4) of the Act-1962, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company submitted that the claimants herein are entitled for the loss/damages caused to them inter alia entitled for 10% of the market value of demand in question in terms of Section 3(1) of the Act-1962 and therefore, he categorically argued that, the Act does not provide for awarding of solatium and re-determination of the compensation as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, he

¶224

¶225

submitted that the impugned award made in the Miscellaneous Applications at Annexure-A, is contrary to the statutory requirement under the Act-1962.

¶226

In this regard, he refers to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of PANNA LAL GHOSH AND OTHERS vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 1 SCC 467 and submitted that, learned Principal District and Sessions Judge solely relying upon the stray sentences in the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had arrived at a conclusion that the claimants in the present Miscellaneous applications are entitled for solatium and such other benefits, which is alien to the Act-1962 and therefore, he submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

¶227

Learned counsel appearing for the petitionerCompany, further emphasised on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LALJIBHAI KADVABHAI SAVALIYA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS reported in (2016)9 SCC 791 and contended that the Act in which, the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in the

¶228

¶229

present proceedings is a self-contained Act and therefore, by referring to Section 18 of the Act-1962, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company submitted that, the finding recorded by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in the impugned order is contrary to the scheme of the Act-1962. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court in respect of quashing of granting solatium and such other benefits to the claimants.

¶230

Sri. B.K. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company also invited the attention of this Court to the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. DHANAWANTI DEVI AND OTHERS reported in (1996) 6 SCC 44 at paragraph 17 of the judgment and submitted that, the finding recorded by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge is contrary to the above judgment.

¶231

Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that, the respondent No.2 is a competent acquiring authority and acquired the land in question

¶232

¶233

for the benefit of the petitioner-Company. Accordingly, he sought to support the contentions of the petitioner-Company.

¶234

Per contra, Sri. S.G. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants argued that there shall not be a discrimination between similarly situated land owners of different enactments in respect of awarding compensation. He further contended that, since the claimants in Land Acquisition Act are entitled for solatium and other benefits and if the same benefit is deprived to the claimants under the Act-1962, it leads to discrimination. Therefore, he invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of this Court in the case of LALITHA AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2003 KAR 165 and also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER vs. TARSEM SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2019)9 SCC 304 and submitted that there must be a parity in awarding compensation and interest insofar as the claimants are concerned. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶235

In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner-

¶236

¶237

Company has challenged the order dated 30^th October, 2008 (Annexure-A) in Miscellaneous Applications, wherein, the operative portion of the same reads as under:

¶238

ORDER

¶239

" In each of the applications, the compensation awarded is confirmed. In addition to the compensation awarded the petitioners are entitled for the solatium and interest in accordance with Section 23A, Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act."

¶240

(emphasis supplied)

¶241

On careful examination of the same, learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, confirmed the award of compensation made by the respondent-Authority and in addition to the same, awarded solatium and interest as per Section 23A read with Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Act-1962 and Rules, 1963 made thereunder. Section 10(4) of the Act reads as under:

¶242

Compensation.- (1) xxxx

(2) xxxx

(3) xxxx

(4) Where the right of user of any land has vested in the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, shall, in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under Sub-section (1), be liable to pay to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting, compensation calculated at ten per cent of the marketvalue of that land on the date of notification under Subsection (1) of Sec.3.

¶247

(emphasis supplied)

¶248

On careful examination of the language employed under Section 10(4) of the Act-1962 makes it clear that the claimant/owners are entitled for compensation and in addition to the same, entitled for compensation calculated at 10% of the market value as per Section 3(1) of the Act-1962. The legislative intent at the time of promulgating the Act was to grant 10% interest in respect of the compensation amount determined and therefore, provision for awarding solatium and interest provided under the Act-1962 does not ariese. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants places reliance on the judgment of TARSEM SINGH (supra), however, the Courts have consistently followed the determination of compensation in the

¶249

¶250

light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LALJIBHAI KADVABHAI SAVALIYA (supra). In the case of DHANAWANTI DEVI (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 17 held as follows:

¶251

"17. All the decisions cited by Mr. Vaidyanathan in support of his contention on solatium were considered in Hari Krishan Khosla's case. His repeated attempts failed to persuade us to have that decision referred to a larger Bench of five Judges, we are unable to persuade ourselves to doubt the correctness of the judgment in Hari Krishan Khosla's case. All the decisions cited by the counsel were considered in extenso bu the Bench in Hari Krishan Khosla's case we are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not necessary to re-examine all the decisions once over. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio in Hari krishan Khosla's case. It would be seen that sub section(2) of Section 23 of the Acquisition Act expressly states that solatium is "in addition" to the compensation as consideration for compulsory nature of acquisition. This distinction was pointed out in catena of decisions including the one referred by a Bench of three Judges in Prem Nath Kapur & Anr. v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & ors. [(1996)2 SCC 71] . For parity of reasons, without further discussion it was held that interest also was not payable. We, therefore, respectfully agree with the ratio in Hari Krishan Khosla's case that the Act omitted to pay solatium and interest, in addition to compensation. The omission by the legislature, as stated earlier, is deliberate.

¶252

¶253

In district Judge Udhampur's case, a Bench of two judges of this court had held that the claimant is not entitled to solatium and interest. Accordingly, we hold that the respondents are not entitled to solatium and interest."

¶254

It is also to be noted that, learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.7192 of 2020 disposed of on 20^th October, 2020 considered the scope and ambit of Section 10 of the Act-1962 and the relevant paragraph at 16 to 23 reads as under:

¶255

16. Section 10 of the Act deals with compensation As per sub-section (1) of Section 10, where in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4, Section 7 or Section 8 by any person, any damage, loss or injury is sustained by any person interested in the land under which the pipeline is proposed to be ar is being, or has been laid, the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay compensation to such person for such damage, loss or injury, the amount of which shall be determined by the competent authority in the first instance. As per sub-section (2) of Section 10, if the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) 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

¶256

¶257

the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by that District Judge.

¶258

17. As per sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, the competent authority or the District Judge while determining the compensation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, shall have due regard to the damage or loss sustained by any person interested in the land by reason of (1) the removal of trees or standing crops, if any, on the land while exercising the powers under Section 4. Section 7 or Section 8; (ii) the temporary severance of the land under which the pipeline has been laid from other lands belonging to, or in the occupation of, such person, or Many injury to any other property, whether movable or immovable, or the earnings of such persons caused in any other manner. As per the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 10, in determining the compensation no account shall be taken of any structure or other improvement made in the land after the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3.

¶259

18. As per sub-section (4) of Section 10, where the night of user of any land has vested in the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, the Central Government, the State Government or the corporation, as the case may be, shall, in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1), be liable to pay to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting, compensation

¶260

¶261

calculated at ten per cent of the market value of that land on the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3. As per sub-section (5) of Section 10, the market value of the land on the said date shall be determined by the competent authority and if the value so determined by that authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, it shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge referred to in sub-section (2), be determined by that District Judge. As per subsection (6) of Section 10, the decision of the District Judge under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) shall be Final.

¶262

19. As per Section 14 of the Act, which deals with bar of jurisdiction of civil courts, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the competent authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. As per Section 18, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force relating to acquisition of land.

¶263

20. In Petronet CCK Ltd. v. Thresiamma and another [2012 (1) KHC 741] this Court held that, sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act provides that the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay

¶264

¶265

compensation to the person interested in the land for the damage, loss or injury sustained by him. The Competent Authority has to fix the compensation payable to the person interested in the land. If the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority is not acceptable to any party, he can approach the District Judge claiming enhancement and the District Judge shall determine the compensation payable. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 provides for payment of compensation calculated at ten per cent of the market value of the land on the date of notification, if the right of user of the land has vested in the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be. The compensation at ten per cent of the market value of the land shall be in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1).

¶266

21. In Petronet CCK Ltd., this Court noticed that, Section 18 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force relating to acquisition of land. This is a provision enabling the Government or the Corporation to acquire the land. if it becomes necessary. If such acquisition is made, the compensation payable to the owner of the land shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In such a situation, the owner of the land will be entitled to the market value of the land and all other items of compensation including compensation for diminution of land value. However, in the case of acquisition of the right of user of the land under the Act, there is no

¶267

¶268

divestiture of the right or title of the land owner in respect of the whole of the land used for the purpose of laying pipelines. The land owner has to suffer only the restrictions imposed under the Act. For that purpose, he is paid compensation in accordance with the scheme of Section 10 of the Act. Section 18/ of the Act would not apply, so long as the land is not acquired as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act.

¶269

22. In Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya v. State of Gujarat [2016 (9) SCC 791] the Apex Court held that, under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, what is taken over or acquired is the right of user to lay and maintain pipelines in the sub-soil of the land in question. Upon the publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act the right of user in the land so specified vests absolutely in the Central Government or in the State Government on in the Corporation free from all encumbrances. Thus, what stands acquired is the right of user in the land in question for laying pipeline for the transport of petroleum or any mineral, and not the land itself. The Statement of Objects and Reasons throws light on this facet of the matter and shows that although the land could be acquired outright for laying such pipelines under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, such procedure for acquisition would be costly. The Act is designed to achieve the purpose or laying of the pipelines for petroleum and minerals as "efficient and cheap means of transportation and distribution of petroleum and petroleum products". At the same time Section 18 specifically lays down that the provisions of

¶270

¶271

the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation to any other jaw for the time being in force relating to acquisition of land. Thus, in a given case where provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For instance, for monitoring the pressure gauges or in cases where pipelines are branching in different directions, implementations to regulate the flow may require permanent establishments necessitating acquisition of the land itself rather than acquisition of a mere right of user. The Act is thus a special enactment designed to achieve the purpose of laving pipelines as efficient means of transportation and with this idea it is only the right of user in the land to lay such pipelines is acquired.

¶272

23. In Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya the Apex Court held further that, for the acquisition of right of user, the compensation is prescribed in terms of Section 10 of the Act. There are two elements of compensation under Section 10. The first part deals with any damage, loss or injury sustained by any owner or occupler as a result of exercise of powers conferred by Section 4, Section 7 or Section 8 of the Act that is to say the actual damage, loss or injury sustained because of entry upon and/or digging or marking levels and survey of land under Section 4 or while actual laying of the pipeline including digging of trenches and carrying of requisite material for such operations under Section 7 or at any stage of maintenance, examinations, repairing and altering or removing of pipeline in terms of Section 8 of the Act. The measure for determining such compensation is given with sufficient clarity in sub-section (3) of Section 10. The idea

¶273

¶274

is to compensate the owner or occupier for actual damage, loss or injury sustained by him as a result of the operations carried out in terms of Section 4, Section 7 or Section 8 of the Act. One of the indicia under sub-section (3) could be any injury to any other property whether movable or Immovabie, or the canings of such persons in any other manner All possible acts as a result of which the damage, loss or injury could be so occasioned are taken care of and stipulated in said sub-section, Over and above such compensation for actual damage, loss or injury, additional compensation at the rate of 10% of the market value of the land is given to the owner of occupier under sub-section (4) of Section 10 for taking over the right of user to lay the pipelines. This element of additional compensation is independent of any actual loss or damage and is purely linked to the value of the land for the purposes of computation. This elernent of compensation is purely for acquisition of right of user simpliciter. The damage or loss or injury to the property is separately dealt with under first part of Section 10 and has to be compensated in toto. Theoretically, it is possible that in a barren piece of land as a result of exercise of powers under Section 4, Section 6 or Section 7 there may not be any damage or loss or injury. However, compensation under sub-section (4) of Section 10 for acquisition of right of user would still be independently payable. The expression in addition to the compensation, if any, payable under sub-section (1) clearly shows the intent that the compensation for acquisition of right of

¶275

¶276

user shall be in addition to the actual damage or loss or injury under first part of Section 10."

¶277

Following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, the judgment referred to by the respondent/claimants are not applicable to the case on hand as the same is contrary to provisions contained under Section 10 of the Act-1962. Therefore, I am of the view that the language employed under Section 10(4) of the Act-1962 excludes the award of solatium and interest and to that extent, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitionerCompany and judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for respondents is not applicable to the facts, in which the acquisition of land made under the Act-1962. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶278

O R D E R

¶279

1) Writ Petition allowed ;

¶280

Order dated 30^th October, 2008 (Annexure-A) passed by the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Miscellaneous Applications is hereby set-aside in respect of awarding solatium and interest as per the

¶281

¶282

provisions contained under the Land Acquisition Act, however, confirmed in respect of the determination of compensation in respect of the subject land is concerned;

¶283

1. Respondent/claimants are entitled for consequential benefits as provided under Section 10(4) of the Act-1962;

¶284

1. Amount in deposit before this Court be transmitted to the Court below.

¶285

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶286

ARK

M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd. v. Sri Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd. v. Sri Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri T Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Nayan Taj Vs the Commissioner

Sri Muddaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Basavarajappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs the Mysore Urban Development Authority

Sri Doddanna Vs State of Karnataka