Karu Nachinar Kinian v. Government of India
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal against a Single Judge order, the High Court examined whether petitioners affected by prior pipeline acquisition proceedings under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act 1962 could claim indemnity or injunction against the respondent corporation. The Court held that by raising constructions after purchase, them altered the land use at their own risk and rejected the appeal.
What did the court decide?
C.M.P.No.4623 of 2020 closed; appeal against Single Judge order in W.P.No.29014 of 2019 rejected.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.06.2020
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.283 of 2020
1.Karu Nachinar Kinian
2.A.R.N.Lakshman .. Appellants/Petitioners
vs.
1. Government of India,
rep. by Under Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
A-Wing, Shastri Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi, Delhi-110 002.
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Chief General Manager (Constructions),
Southern Region Pipelines,
House of Four Frames,
No.6/13, Wheat Croft Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
.. Respondents/Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.29014 of 2019.
W.P.No.29014 of 2019:
Writ of Mandamus ,forbearing the 2nd Respondent from invoking the Provisions of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines(Acqusition of Right of User In land) Act 1962 agains the Petitioners Land situate in Plot No 63,64 Om Prakash Nagar Comprised in S.NO 606/1 Kunrathur village measuring about 4800 square feet without Following due Process of Law and consequently forbear the 2nd Respondent from demolishing the Superstructure put by the Petitoner.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants can claim indemnity against knowledge of encumbrance regarding pipeline acquisition proceedings that were ongoing prior to their 2019 purchase of the land.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Single Judge's order rejecting the writ petition seeking stay on demolition of superstructure under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act.
Whether the construction raised by the petitioners after purchasing the land constitutes alteration of land user at their own risk barring statutory right of user.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Karu Nachinar Kinian
- petitioner
A.R.N.Lakshman
- respondent
Government of India
- respondent
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court