Karnataka HC Quashes ₹1.52-Lakh Refund Demand After Pipeline Deviation Left Acquired Land’s Use Unclear

The petitioner owned land in Survey Nos. 142/P1, 143/1P1 and 107/13 at Padur Village.

Following notifications issued under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, 35 cents were acquired for a pipeline project, and compensation of ₹7,09,800 was paid.

During excavation, the respondents encountered hard rock and deviated from the original sketch.

They later asserted that only 27.5 cents had been used and directed the petitioner to refund ₹1,52,000 as excess compensation.

The petitioner challenged that direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court considered the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, under which the relevant notifications were issued pursuant to Section 3(1).

It noted that the Act restricts the petitioner from constructing buildings or planting deep-rooted plants near the pipeline, and that a buffer must be maintained.

The Court applied the principle that a demand for repayment of alleged excess compensation could not be sustained without clear demarcation establishing which portion of the acquired land had actually been used.

No precedent was cited.

Although the respondents claimed that 27.5 cents had been used, the Court found no clear demarcation showing where the pipeline had been laid or whether the remaining 7.5 cents was available for the petitioner’s use.

It also considered the excavation’s effect on the land and the restrictions applicable near the pipeline, including the need for a buffer.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the respondents could not require repayment of ₹1,52,000.

It left the respondents free to use the 35 cents acquired in the specified survey numbers under the notifications, and directed that the petitioner must not obstruct them from doing so.