1. Heard Mr. A.B. Gateshaniya, learned advocate for the petitioners.
2. During the hearing and from the record, it has emerged that the notification for acquiring Right of User in land for laying pipeline for transportation of natural gas was issued as back as on 1.2.2012.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have made representation to the concerned respondent on 29.5.2012 (Annexure-K, page 97).
4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the representation, the petitioners have tried to bring to the notice of the respondent company and other authorities that there is an alternative route for laying the pipeline, which ought to be considered before taking action of acquiring Right of User in respect of the lands mentioned in the notification.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioners have until now not received any reply or response, either positive or against them, from the concerned respondents and that, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court.
6. According to the provisions of the Act, particularly as per Section 3, prior notification declaring intention to acquire Right of User in respect of any land is required to be issued.
7. In present case, requisite notification has been issued on 1st February, 2012. Therefore, the said statutory requirement appears to have been complied with.
8. It appears that the petitioners have grievance about quantum of compensation as well. The Act provides for determining the compensation and if the concerned affected person feels aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, provisions for raising dispute/taking out proceedings for determination of compensation are also made under the Act. So far as the petitioners' request that the respondent company may consider the alternative route so that the lands of the petitioners may not be affected, is concerned, it is not proper to assume that while deciding the route for laying the pipeline, the respondent company did not consider the various alternatives.
9. However, since the petitioners have certain specific suggestions which the petitioners desire that the respondents should consider, it appears appropriate to direct the respondent company to decide the representation made by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two weeks from the receipt of this order.
10. The competent authority shall take into consideration the representation dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure-K, page 97) annexed to this petition and shall also consider the other aspects mentioned by the petitioners in present petition and take appropriate decision before the aforesaid time limit.
11. It is open to the petitioners to forward copy of this order to the concerned authority. The petitioners are also permitted to serve certified copy of the present order directly to the concerned authority, in addition to ordinary mode of service of process by Registry.
12. With the aforesaid clarifications and observations, the petition is disposed of at this stage.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top