Gujarat High Court Upholds State Law On Acquisition Of Land For Water & Gas Pipelines, Finds No Conflict With Central Law

The Gujarat High Court has held that state enactment Gujarat Water & Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 2000 is not repugnant to the central enactment Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 finding that the provisions of the two laws are pari-materia.The court was considering whether 2000 Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature and if its competence can be traced to Entry 42 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.It further considered that whether the legislative competence is exclusively of the Union, the subject matter of the Legislation being traced to Entry 53 of List I (Union List), as claimed by the petitioners.Further, whether the provisions of the 2000 Act, as well as the consequential notification issued under Section 6(1) infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.After perusing the provisions as well as various judgments, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in its order said:"Comparing the provisions of the Central Act, 1962 and the State Act, 2000 (impugned herein), we find no inconsistency in any provision between the two. Therefore, there can be no repugnancy in the sense that the State Act or any provision thereof can be held to be repugnant to the Central Act, 1962 within the meaning of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Since the impugned State Act, 2000 is pari materia with the Central Act, 1962, the provisions of which have been examined and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laljibhai Savaliya (Supra), the provisions of the State Act, in no manner, infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of the Constitution of India".The court was hearing a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the 2000 Act in connection with, the 1962 Act. The petitioner owned a land in Surat, which was sought to be acquired by Gujarat State Petronet Limited under the 2000 Act to lay a pipeline for transportation of natural gas.The State issued a notification dated 02.04.2009 under Section 6 of the 2000 Act, declaring that the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule annexed to the said notification stood acquired for laying the pipeline. This included the petitioner's land. The Company contacted the erstwhile owner for claiming compensation. The petitioner made a representation dated 11.05.2009 to the Company informing it about the transfer of ownership in his favour and requesting that all future correspondence be addressed to him. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted objections before the respondent No. 3, District Collector, Surat, for determination and receipt of compensation. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the 2000 Act. The bench said that whether the enactment is covered under Entry 42 List III (Acquisition and requisitioning of property) or entry 53 of the Union List (Regulation and development of oilfields and mineral oil resources; petroleum and petroleum products; other liquids and substances declared by Parliament by law to be dangerously inflammable) is not a matter which is open for the petitioners to press. This was in view of high court's 2005 decision in Anil @ Bipinchandra Chotubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat and Others. The court noted that the high court had while admitting the present writ petition in 2011 had categorically observed that, "only question Involved in the case is whether Act 5 of 2000 enacted by the Legislature of the State is inconsistent with the Act 50 of 1962 elected by the Parliament and thereby is repugnant as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India.”The bench said that as per Supreme Court's judgment in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) it is an accepted and unchallenged position that all enactments pertaining to acquisition/requisition of land or exercise of eminent domain have been enacted with the power being traced back to Entry 42 of the Concurrent List (List-III)."R. C. Cooper (Supra) is now stare decisis, therefore, no submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to the contrary can be accepted by us," the court said. With respect to State Act being repugnant to the Central Act the court held from the context of the Central Act of 1962, it was evident that the intention of the Parliament was to allow Parliament / the State Legislature to operate in the same field. A similar provision in the impugned State Act, 2000 which further clarified that the State Act does not intent to collide with the Central Act noting that both the laws contained the provision “in addition to and not in derogation of”.The court after comparing the provisions of both the laws, observed that the "same are pari materia"."This would necessarily imply that the provisions of the...

Gujarat High Court Upholds State Law On Acquisition Of Land For Water & Gas Pipelines, Finds No Conflict With Central Law

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Gujarat High Court Upholds State Law On Acquisition Of Land For Water & Gas Pipelines, Finds No Conflict With Central Law

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers