The Gail India Limited And Anr. vs Kaddus Ali And 4 Ors.
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010146232026
2026:GAU-AS:14058-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/256/2026
1.THE GAIL INDIA LIMITED,
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), MAHARATNA COMPANY,
BARAUNI-GUWAHATI GAS PIPE LINE (BGPL) PROJECT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS HEADQUARTER
AT GAIL BHAWAN, 16 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-
110066.
2: THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, ASSAM
GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
MAHARATNA COMPANY BARAUNI-GUWAHATI GAS PIPE LINE (BGPL)
PROJECT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOTEL ROYAL DE CASA BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD WIRELESS BELTOLA GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM-781028.
…… ..Appellants
- VERSUS -
1.KADDUS ALI,
S/O LATE UZIR MAHMUD FAKIR, VILLAGE- KHAIRABARI,
P.O. AND P.S.-BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND
SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI DISTRICT-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN-781006
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA
P.O. AND P.S.-BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BARNAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE BARNAGAR
BARPETA P.O.-SORBHOG DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781317.
5:THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI PIN-110001.
…… ..Respondents
Page No.# 2/10
–
B E F O R E –
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Saikia , Senior Advocate , assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari
and Mr. B. Chowdhury , Advocates.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury , Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Anowar Hussain , Advocate for respondent No.1.
: Ms. N. Bordoloi , Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for
respondent No.2.
: Ms. M. Bhattacharjee , Additional Senior Government
Advocate , Assam for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Date of Hearing : 23.09.2026.
Date of Judgment : 23.09.2026.
J UDGMENT & O RDER ( ORAL )
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. D. Saikia , learned Senior Advocate ,
assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari and Mr. B. Chowdhury , learned Advocates for
the appellants/ GAIL India Limited & Anr. and Mr. K.N. Choudhury , learned
Senior Advocate , assisted by Mr. Anowar Hossain , learned Advocate for
respondent No.1. Ms. N. Bordoloi , learned Standing Counsel , Revenue
Department and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee , learned Additional Senior
Government Advocate , Assam are present.
2. In this intra-court appeal , the appellants have mounted
challenge to the judgment and order dated 16.06.2026 passed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.572/2024 , whereby it has
been held that for determination of the compensation for acquisition of
Page No.# 3/10
the right of user of land of respondent No.1 under the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962
“ ”
(hereinafter to be referred as P&MP Act , 1962 ) , compensation would be
calculated on the basis of the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and
“ ”
Resettlement Act , 2013 (in short , RFCTLARR Act , 2013 ) by virtue of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition ,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order , 2015.
By the afore-noted judgment , the competent authority was
directed to determine the compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 , particularly , solatium and interest.
3. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , Government of
India , vide Notification dated 26.12.2018 , published on 31.12.2018 ,
acquired the right of user over the land belonging to respondent No.1
under the P&MP Act , 1962 , for the purposes of laying the Barauni-
Guwahati Gas Pipeline (BGPL) by the appellants/GAIL.
4. Before that , a notice was issued by the competent authority
on 09.08.2019 , which came to the knowledge of respondent No.1 only on
20.06.2020 and , therefore , he could not participate in the objection
proceedings.
However , later , a dispute arose whether respondent No.1
would be compensated under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 or the P&MP Act ,
1962 ; which objection was raised by respondent No.1 before the
competent authority , seeking a clarification in that regard.
5. The response of the appellants dated 07.08.2020 on this
Page No.# 4/10
objection of respondent No.1 was that since the right of user acquisition
had taken place as per the provisions of P&MP Act , 1962 , the
compensation would be received under Sections 10 and 11 of the
P&MP Act , 1962 and not under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013.
6. Based on this declaration of the competent authority ,
respondent No.1 registered a Miscellaneous (L.A.) Case No.16/2020
under Sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the P&MP Act 1962 before the
,
learned District Judge Barpeta wherein all other respondents except
, ,
the appellants herein refrained from raising any contention.
7. The appellants stated before the competent authority that
for the purposes of determination of compensation , the market value of
the land would be assessed by adopting the methodology
contemplated under the First Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013.
Thereafter , the market value would be multiplied by a factor two for
solatium which would be added to the compensation. This would allow
the affected land- holder to get compensation at the rate of 10% i.e.
40% of the market value declared by the District Administration. It was
also asserted by the appellants/GAIL that this methodology has been
adopted in all the projects of the GAIL.
8. The matter travelled to the High Court , wherein before the
learned Single Judge , the same stand was taken by the appellants.
9. We are in absolute conformity with the judgment and order
impugned in the present appeal.
However , we wish to indicate that from a reading of the
brief , it gets reflected that there was some confusion amongst the
Page No.# 5/10
parties with respect to the methodology of calculating the
compensation and , therefore , this litigation ensued. The confusion got
further exacerbated with the declaration of the authority that the
compensation would be payable as per the P&MP Act , 1962. It was a
short/cryptic communication and lacked the clarification that the
methodology for calculating the market value of the land would be the
one which is provided in the RFCTLARR Act , 2013.
10. The stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge
and also before this Court has consistently been that though there is
difference between “ acquisition of land ” and “ acquisition for the user of
land ” and that compensation for acquisition of user of land for laying a
gas pipeline would necessarily be based on the principles enunciated
in Section 10 of the P&MP Act , 1962 , which takes into account
compensation for removal of trees or standing crops ; for temporary
severance of the land under which the pipeline has been laid from the
other lands and for any injury to any other property , whether movable
or immovable or the earnings of such persons caused by any such
manner. Along with it , the appellants maintained , what would be
payable as compensation is the 10% of the market value.
11. Since no methodology for calculating the market value has
been provided in the P&MP Act , 1962 , it was the stand of the appellants
that the market value of the land would be assessed in accordance
with RFCTLARR Act , 2013 and an equivalent amount of solatium would
be added. Thereafter 10% of the market value would also be provided
,
to the land-holder which in case of the acquisition for user of land
Page No.# 6/10
would be 40%.
12. The reason for giving 40% on the market value of the land ,
which includes solatium , is to be found in the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. -Vs- GAIL India
Limited & Ors.:: (2016) 7 SCC 565 , wherein it has been held as follows:
“ 12. The scheme of the Right to User Act envisages payment of
compensation @ 10% of the market value of the land. The determination of
market value is left to the competent authority. The submissions made at the
Bar before us suggest as though the process of determination of the market
value has not been completed in regard to most of the land being used for the
pipeline. If that be so, the process of determination can be initiated and guided
by the Government stipulating a circle rate/guideline value/minimum price
which will be treated by the competent authority as the market value for
purposes of determining the amount of compensation payable to the owners.
Mr. Mehta’s submission that the market value could be determined as on 1-1-
2016 in order to avoid any prejudice to the landowners is a fair offer which we
are inclined to accept, with a view to reducing any hardship to the farmers. We
would therefore permit the State Government to stipulate the circle
rates/guideline value/market value for purpose of determination of
compensation payable towards acquisition of right to user of the affected
landowners as on 1-1-2016. The circle rate/guideline/notification so issued
shall then become the basis for the determination of the compensation payable
to the landowners at the hands of the competent authority. Once that amount is
calculated and determined by the competent authority, the landowners shall be
entitled to an additional 30% of the amount so determined towards
compensation. The procedure so adopted would, in our opinion, reduce any
hardship to the landowners and bring about a certain amount of uniformity in
the matter of determination and payment of compensation to the affected
parties. There is no gainsaying that anyone who is not satisfied with the
amount so determined and paid, shall be free to seek a reference to the District
Court for determination of the true market value of the land in which the right
to user has been acquired by the Government by getting a reference made
under Section 10(2) of the Right to User Act. We make it clear that our direction
regarding payment of 30% over and above the amount otherwise payable to the
landowners is on the basis of the concession made before us by GAIL and shall
not be deemed to be a part of the scheme under the Act.”
(Emphasis provided)
Page No.# 7/10
13. It appears that since then , the compensation for land user is
being given at the rate of 10% of the market value plus 30% , which
makes it 40%.
With this clarification , the parties have become ad idem that
the methodology for calculating the market value is the one which is
provided in the RFCTLARR Act , 2013.
14. However , during the course of argument , Mr. K.N.
Choudhury , learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 has
submitted that in accordance with Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act ,
2013 , solatium will include , in all cases , interest for the period of
commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification of
the Social Impact Assessment Study under sub-section (2) of Section 4
of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 , in respect of such land , till the date of the
award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land ,
whichever is earlier. He , therefore , submits that under the P&MP Act ,
1962 , what is payable as the rate of interest is only 6% per annum from
the date on which compensation had to be deposited till the date of
actual deposit.
15. In support of his contention , Mr. Choudhury has cited the
decision of the Supreme Court in R.B. Dealers Private Limited -Vs-
Metro Railway , Kolkata :: (2019) 20 SCC 658.
Para No.4.1 of the afore-noted judgment reads as follows:
“ 4.1. The relevant provisions of the 2013 Act are Sections 26, 27, 28, 29
and 30. Section 26 of the Act provides for determination of market value of the
land by the Collector. Section 27 of the Act provides for determination of the
amount of compensation and Section 28 of the Act provides the parameters to
be considered by the Collector in determination of the award. Section 29 of the
Page No.# 8/10
Act provides for determination of the value of things attached to the land or
building. Section 30 of the Act provides that the Collector having determined the
total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a
‘solatium’ amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation
amount. Sub-section (3) of Section 30 further provides that in addition to the
market value of the land provided under Section 26, the Collector shall, in
every case, award the amount calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on such
market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication
of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4, in respect of such land, till
the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the
land, whichever is earlier. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the aforesaid
provisions and the scheme of the Act, it is to be seen that before the final
award is passed by the Collector, the Collector has to determine the market
value of the land as provided under Section 26 of the Act. That, thereafter, after
determination of the market value of the land as provided under Section 26 of
the Act, the Collector has to determine the amount of compensation as per
Section 27 of the Act, which includes the market value of the land as well as
the value of all assets attached to the land. Therefore, the amount of
compensation determined shall be including the market value of the land to be
acquired (as per Section 26 of the 2013 Act) and the value of all assets
attached to the land. The determination of the value of the things attached to
the land or building shall be as per Section 29 of the 2013 Act. Over and above
the amount of compensation so determined by the Collector as per Sections 26,
27 and 28 of the 2013 Act, at the time of the final award, the Collector has to
impose a ‘solatium’ amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the
compensation amount, as per Sections 29 and 30 of the 2013 Act. The
landowner whose land has been acquired shall also be entitled to in addition
to the market value of the land provided under Section 26 of the Act, an amount
calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. on such market value. Therefore, on a
conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and the scheme of the 2013 Act,
the final award declared by the Collector shall be in three parts/components,
namely, the amount of compensation (which shall include the market value of
the land to be acquired and the value of the assets attached to the land); the
solatium determined and payable under sub-section (1) of the Section 30 which
shall be equivalent to one hundred per cent of the compensation amount (the
market value + value of assets attached to the land) and the amount calculated
at the rate of 12% p.a. on such market value [as per sub-section (3) of Section
30 of the Act of 2013]. All the three components would be independent which
shall ultimately form part of the final award.”
(Emphasis provided)
Page No.# 9/10
16 . What Mr. Choudhury therefore contends is that the solatium
would include not only the amount equivalent to one hundred per cent
of the compensation amount , as per Sections 29 and 30 of the
RFCTLARR Act , 2013 , but would also include , as a component thereof ,
the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
17. The analogy drawn by Mr. Choudhury is not correct , for , an
acquisition under the P&MP Act , 1962 does not provide for any Social
Impact Assessment Study for such interest component to be added to
the market value unless there is a delay in the payment of the
,
compensation for which a land-holder is only entitled to 6% interest as
,
per the P&MP Act 1962.
,
18. It must be appreciated that in cases of acquisition of land
under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 , the compensation would include market
value plus equal value of solatium plus interest at the rate of 12% to be
calculated from the date of publication of the notification of the Social
Impact Study under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act,
2013 , till the date of the award of a Collector or the date of taking
possession of the land , whichever is earlier. In case of acquisition for
user , interest at that rate would not be the component for the reason
referred to above.
19. In fact , in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. -Vs- GAIL India
Limited & Ors . (supra) , it was conceded by the GAIL that apart from
10% compensation of market value , an additional 30% would be paid
as compensation , which practice continues even today in cases of
acquisition for land user under the P&MP Act , 1962.
Page No.# 10/10
This , therefore , covers more than the interest component
under Section 30(3) of the RFCTLARR Act , 2013.
20. Thus , we clarify that respondent No.1 as a land-holder would
be entitled to compensation , which would be the market value of the
land as assessed under the RFCTLARR Act , 2013 plus equal amount of
solatium and 40% (10%+30%) of the said amount.
21. The same methodology of calculation has been shown by
the appellants in the supplementary affidavit filed on their behalf.
However , in accordance with Section 11(2) of the P&MP Act , 1962 ,
interest at the rate of 6% per annum would be payable from the date
on which the compensation had to be deposited till the date of actual
deposit.
22. Thus , without interfering with the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge , the issue stands clarified and explained.
23. The present appeal thus stands disposed off accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant