Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
This case is about a number of writ petitions that were filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. All the petitioners wanted to seek the same relief against the same respondents; therefore the honorable Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with all the cases of the petition together. The petitioners had filed in order to seek justice and declare that the action of the respondents in not following the procedure that was contemplated under Rule 4A (2) of the Petroleum & Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1962 by conducting virtual panchanama in the presence of the Horticulture and Forest Officials and trying to lay the pipelines by destroying the evidence to deprive the respective petitioners to have just compensation for their land as illegal.
Facts of the Case: The petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the respective lands. The second respondent of this case had issued notices to the petitioners proposing them to utilize the said lands to lay pipelines and had also asked the petitioners to raise objections. Thereby, the petitioners submitted their objections. After that, the petitioner sought for conduction of panchanamas as per the new Land Acquisition Act and to prepare an inventory. But without passing any orders, the respondents proposed to deprive the petitioners of their respective lands by employing men and machinery at their land. However, the second respondent is bound to conduct a panchanama and should take into consideration the age and life span of the existing trees and the loss sustained by the owners of the lands due to the cutting of the trees. But the second respondent is planning to calculate the loss in tonnage instead of the Capitalization Method. For calculating in capitalization method, a virtual panchanama is required in the presence of Horticulture and Forest department officials. But the respondents are violating the procedure. Hence these writ petitions were filed before the honorable Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Argument by the respondent: According to the learned counsel of the respondents, the procedure which is stated under Rule 4A (2) is that the Panchanama is required to be conducted by a team of persons to note down the damage and loss caused by the acquisition of the right of use of land and the procedure to conduct panchanama is contemplated under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 4A (2). And if the petitioners were not satisfied with the quantum of the amount awarded by the Competent Authority, they should have filed the applications before the District Judge for redetermination of the compensation awarded. Thus, the petition should be dismissed. However, the learned counsel also added to his contention that though the assessment was strictly done in accordance with the Rule, yet there is no standard prescribed for assessing the yield of the trees and it is not feasible to adopt girth class as one of the parameters since the plants would be in the form of bushes.
Argument by the petitioner: The learned counsel of the petitioner stated that in this case the girth of the trees was not taken into consideration which was eventually leading to the loss of the petitioners. To establish his statements he referred to a report i.e. Polavaram Project where in some instances girth class was taken as one of the parameters.
After hearing the counsel of both the parties, the single bench Judge Justice T. Rajani gave the verdict on the 4th of December 2019. He stated that after looking into the facts of this case, it can be observed that there is no standard procedure prescribed for assessing the yield of the trees or the plants. However, in some cases, the girth of the class has been taken as one of the parameters of calculation. Hence, the honorable High Court directed that the respondents were required to adopt the girth class as one of the parameters in assessing the yield for the trees or plants. But as the respondent stated that out of twenty-seven cases in thirteen cases the compensation was already awarded, and in twenty-one cases, out of twenty-seven cases the panchanamas were conducted. Therefore, the Court directed to adopt the girth class parameter in those cases wherever it is feasible and where the panchanamas were not yet conducted.
However, another appeal was filed before the honorable High Court regarding the order that was passed on the 4th of December 2019. The main grievance of the writ petitioners according to the learned counsel for the appellants that the lands which were acquired for laying down of the pipeline, the factual scenario of affording due opportunity by way of panchanama, yet has not been brought on record. In regard to Section 10(2) of the Acquisition of Right of User in Land 1962, the petitioner wants to take recourse of law. The learned counsel of the petitioners added that as the trees would be demolished in order to lay the pipeline, there would be no cogent evidence available to them. Thus, they want to request the court to issue directions that when the land of the individual writ petitioners’ are used to lay the pipelines and the trees are cut down, the situation should be photographed, measurement of trees and other items should be brought on record.
Judgment: The honorable High Court finally gave the verdict on 8.01.2020. The Court directed the respondents that they should be doing their work as directed by the single bench judge previously. In addition to that, they must take photographs of the number of trees; take the measurement and the age of the trees. And after taking all this evidence they will send one copy to the individual owners of the land and keep one with themselves. And even after this, if the petitioners are not satisfied by the compensation amount, they are at liberty to take recourse as contemplated under Section 10(2) of the Acquisition of Right of User in Land Act 1962.
86540
103860
630
114
59824