The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought reply from Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd (RGTIL), the ministry of petroleum & natural gas and others on a batch of petitions filed by land owners alleging that the firm had ?snatched their livelihood? and failed to provide adequate compensation for using their land for laying gas pipelines to transport natural gas from Krishna-Godavari basin to Gujarat.
Around 52 land owners from Surat have sought compensation as per the prevailing market rate from the date on which RGTIL had taken the possession of their land for laying pipelines that ripped through Krishna Industrial Estate. Besides, they have sought a direction to the central government and RGTIL to rehabilitate them by providing alternative plots for total deprivation of their land for the pipelines.
A Bench headed by Justice P Sathasivam has sought reply from RGTIL, the ministry of petroleum and natural gas, the Gujarat government, and other land revenue authorities on four SLPs challenging the constitutional validity of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 1962.
However, another writ petition on a similar issue before another Bench headed by Justice B Sudershan Reddy was adjourned. According to the land owners, the Act needs to be examined by the apex court as it contained the most arbitrary provisions with regard to compensating people on whose land the pipelines are laid.
Senior counsel Altaf Ahmed, appearing for the land owners, said that a land owner remained an owner merely on paper as he can neither cultivate nor carry on any industrial work on their lands, thus depriving him of his right to use the land.
Under Section 9 of the Act, no construction or agriculture activity is allowed on the land under which pipelines are laid as such activities can cause damage to the pipeline. ?The difference between acquisition of the land and acquisition of the right to use the land is a statutory fiction created only with a view to intentionally reduce the compensation which should be paid to the land owner,? the petitions filed by counsel H A Raichura stated. Even the repeated attempts to persuade RGTIL to pay reasonable compensation went in vain, the land owners said, claiming to be poor diamond polishers who had invested lifetime savings in their plots.