MAVJIBHAI MULJIBHAI VAGHELAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/20427/2015                              ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20427 of 2015

=============================================
                        MAVJIBHAI MULJIBHAI VAGHELA
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER                             for      the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
       SUNITA AGARWAL
       and
       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

                             Date : 12/01/2026

                          ORAL ORDER
              (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                 MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1.     The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased
petitioner stand substituted vide the order in Civil Application
(For Bringing Legal Heirs) No.01 of 2025 passed today itself.
We further proceed with the hearing of the main matter.

2.     The      present     petition   presented   on   08.12.2025,           is
pending for about 11 years. On the presentation of the writ
petition, vide order dated 18.02.2016, on consideration of the
stand of the respondent about laying down pipelines for
carrying water through the land in question, it was noted by
this Court that the proceedings for acquisition of the right of
way in terms of the Gujarat Water and Gas Pipelines



                                   Page 1 of 6
       C/SCA/20427/2015                                    ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000 (for short, the
Act’      2000”)          had   been   initiated     by   publication        of      the
noti昀椀cations under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act’ 2000. On the
objection raised by the petitioner vide communication dated
25.03.2014, the petitioner was granted personal hearing and
his objections were rejected. The respondents State in the
a昀昀idavit in reply had pointed out that the petitioner had
remained present before the Authority on several occasion
and was also heard.

3.       It was also noted therein that the objections of the
original petitioner in the representation was for changing the
alignment of the pipeline so that it may pass through the
border of the land and not from the center thereof. Pursuant
thereto, a technical committee was constituted and upon
inquiry, the committee gave its opinion suggesting that it was
not feasible to change the course of the pipeline.

4.       It was also noted by this Court in the order dated
18.02.2016 while refusing to grant an interim order in favour
of the petitioner that the entire project involves an estimated
cost of Rs.550 crores and is an important link between Morbi
(Macchu Dam) and Aji-III Dam and any disruption of the
project would crucially a昀昀ect the water supply scheme. The
order categorically records that during the pendency of the
writ petition, the pipeline through the lands of the petitioner
had already been laid.

5.       After refusal of the prayer for grant of interim order
dated 18.02.2016, it appears that the writ petition has not



                                       Page 2 of 6
     C/SCA/20427/2015                                     ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




been pursued. The father of the newly substituted petitioners,
namely the original petitioner had died on 06.05.2021. The
application seeking for substitution has been 昀椀led with
substantial delay, though the same has been allowed under a
separate order passed today itself. However, the fact remains
that the work of installation of pipeline had already been
completed         as    early   as   in    the     year   2015      –    16    after
consideration of the objections of the petitioner about
feasibility of the project.

6.     After a period of 11 years, on the submission made by
the learned counsel for the substituted petitioners about the
昀氀aw in the procedure of acquisition for laying of the pipeline,
no interference can be made.

7.     We may further note that work of laying of the pipeline
is governed by the provisions of the the Gujarat Water and
Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000.
As    per     the       provisions   contained       therein,       there      is   a
requirement of publication of the noti昀椀cations for acquisition
of the right of use in any private land for the purpose of laying
pipelines under the said Act.

8.     As noted hereinabove, the process of laying of pipeline
was completed after publication of the noti昀椀cations under
Sections 3 and 6 of the Act’ 2000. The challenge to the
acquisition noti昀椀cations dated 15.05.2014 and 19.09.2014
under Sections 3 and 6 of the Act’ 2000 was brought by way
of the amendment sought in the year 2016 that too on the
premise that the acquisition proceedings are in violation of



                                     Page 3 of 6
      C/SCA/20427/2015                       ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




the principles of natural justice and the objections 昀椀led by the
petitioner have not been considered in the right spirit.

9.      We may note that only paragraph No. ‘18A’ has been
added by way of amendment, wherein the ground taken is that
the impugned action of the respondent authorities in laying
the pipelines during the pendency of the writ petition is
absolutely illegal. No plausible grounds have been raised
apart from the denial of opportunity of hearing to the original
petitioner, to challenge the acquisition of right of user by way
of the noti昀椀cations published under the Act’ 2000.

10.     The other contention of the petitioner is that since the
petitioner had not accepted the compensation from the
concerned authority and hence, the prayer for status quo ante
be considered.

11.     The present is a case where the pipeline has been laid by
following the due procedure under the Act’ 2000 for the water
supply scheme, as an important link between Morbi (Macchu
Dam) and Aji-III Dam. The only objection raised by the
petitioner during the course of hearing a昀昀orded under the
provisions of Section 4 of the Act’ 2000 was that the
alignment of water pipeline was required to be changed,
which was duly considered by the competent authority by
constituting a committee, which had submitted the report.
After completion of the process of acquisition, which was
initiated in the year 2014, the present petition had been 昀椀led
in the year 2015.




                              Page 4 of 6
      C/SCA/20427/2015                       ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




12.     In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not
disclosed as to when the compensation for the right of user in
the land in question has been determined. As there is a
complete silence in the writ petition about the determination
of the compensation under Section 8 of the Act’ 2000, from
the only statement that the petitioner has not accepted the
compensation determined by the competent authority, atleast,
it is evident that the proceedings for acquisition of the right of
use in the land in question had been culminated with the
determination of compensation under the provisions of the
Act’ 2000.

13.     Sections 10 and 11 of the Act’ 2000 pertains to
determination of compensation by the competent authority. As
the acquisition proceedings had been brought to its logical
end with the determination of the compensation and there is
an acceptance in that regard in the writ petition with the
assertion that the original petitioner had refused to accept the
compensation, we do not 昀椀nd a 昀椀t case to entertain on the
validity of the acquisition noti昀椀cations.

14.     In this scenario, the prayer made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner to restore status quo ante is found to be
without any force and hence, rejected.


15.     In view of the above, all the prayers made in the writ
petition are liable to be rejected. The present petition is,
accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to
costs.




                              Page 5 of 6
      C/SCA/20427/2015                                                     ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




16.     It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the
present petition will not come in the way of the substituted
petitioners, namely the heirs and legal representatives of the
original owner to claim the disbursement of compensation, if
the compensation had not been received by the original
owner.




                                                                 (SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )




                                                                                         (D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 19/01/2026 11:52:16




                                                Page 6 of 6