Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL for short) is engaged in the establishment of the "Kochi-Koottanad-Bangalore-Mangalore Gas pipeline", to facilitate which, a notification dated 03.09.2010 was issued under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMP Act' for short), leading to the Right of User being acquired on the properties of the petitioners. It is without contest that the petitioners were granted eligible compensation under the "PMP Act" without much of delay.

2. While so, certain new notifications were issued to aid the same project and the Government of Kerala initially came out with a package of compensation, through G.O.(Rt.) No. 7325/2012/RD dated 29.12.2012, which was thereafter modified through G.O.(Rt.) No. 3195/13/RD dated 04.06.2013 - a copy of which is on record as Ext. P2 along with W.P.(C) No. 19957 of 2020. Subsequently, a further order was issued by the Government, bearing number G.O.(Rt.) No. 5165/2017/RD dated 01.12.2017, fixing the market value of the property for the purpose of computing compensation under the "PMP Act", as being ten times of its notified Fair Value.

3. On being informed of the afore notification - which shall hereinafter be referred to as the "2017 order" - the petitioners put forth a claim that they are also entitled to the benefits under the said order, even though their lands were acquired in the year 2010. When this was not acceded to, they have approached this Court through these writ petitions.

4. I am hearing the afore two writ petitions together because the factual factors are analogous and the reliefs sought for are similar, if not, identical.

5. The argument on behalf of the petitioners were impelled by Shri P. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2133 of 2020 and Shri S.K. Balachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 19957 of 2020.

6. The learned counsel argued that the "2017 order" is egregiously improper and illegal because it gives benefits to certain land owners, while denying it to persons like the petitioners, merely because their lands were acquired on an earlier point of time. They argued that the discrimination is glaring and that the classification of the land owners into two different categories is without any intelligible differentia and does not sub-serve any cogent purpose; and consequently that the "2017 order" is liable to be set aside by this Court to the extent to which it excludes them.

7. This Court heard these matters on several days past, and on 07.09.2021 when it was listed, a specific adscititious submission was made on behalf of the petitioners that certain property owners, on whose lands the Right of User had been acquired pursuant to the notification dated 03.09.2010 were offered the benefit of the "2017 order". This Court found the afore allegation - without finding it to be genuine - to be one that required the response of the GAIL, as also the Government of Kerala and I adjourned these matters with the following order on that day:

"Sri Mohammed Rafi, learned counsel appearing for the GAIL, submits that the order of the Government of Kerala dated 01.12.2017 is applicable only to acquisition that happened subsequent to their first notification dated 03.09.2010. He added that acquisition of the petitioners' properties was done based on the notification dated 03.09.2010; while that with respect to the properties mentioned in the Government Order dated 01.12.2017 was based on subsequent notifications.

2. However, I do not see any such pleading or material having been placed on record by the GAIL.

3. I, therefore, adjourn these matters to be called on 16.09.2021 for the GAIL to produce necessary orders.

I must also record that if all the acquisitions happened, as alleged by the petitioners, based on the notification dated 03.09.2010, I find no justification for the Government of Kerala in having confined the payment of compensation, as directed through their order dated 01.12.2017, solely from the beginning of the construction activity in January, 2012."

8. The records reveal that, thereafter or even before, the GAIL and the Government of Kerala completed their pleadings, wherein, their singular stand is that the Right of User over every land acquired pursuant to the notification dated 03.09.2010, including that of the petitioners, were used for the purpose of "Phase I" of the Pipeline and that the work thereon was completed before 31.12.2011. According to them, the lands required for "Phase II" were acquired subsequently through separate notifications and that the Government of Kerala had made the Packages for rehabilitation and compensation only with respect to those lands, without intending to cover those, over which the work had been completed and Awards determined and paid.

9. Shri K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Mohammed A1 Rafi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GAIL, vehemently asserted that the petitioners cannot allege any discrimination because their lands were acquired under the notification dated 03.09.2010, while the "2017 order" of the Government of Kerala was specifically thought of and designed to cover only those lands which governed by the subsequent notifications and which were part of "Phase II" of the Pipeline. The learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel thus argued that the very edifice of the petitioners' allegations that, they have been unfairly discriminated, would have no legs to stand on, because all the properties through which the Right of User were acquired pursuant to the notification dated 03.09.2010, have been treated equally and that there is no forensic stipulation which mandates that the benefits under separate notifications have to be the same or equated. They thus vehemently argued that these writ petitions are not maintainable and prayed that they be dismissed.

10. Shri Ajith Krishnan - learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Deputy Collector and competent Authority of the Project, adopted the afore submissions of Shri K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Mohammed Al Rafi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GAIL, showing me through the counter pleadings filed by his clients - that the lands which were acquired, including that of the petitioners, through the notification dated 03.09.2010 had been included only in "Phase I" and that the acquisition of the Right of User over them was completed and the work finished with respect to them, before 31.12.2011. He submitted that all the land owners, including the petitioners, were given eligible compensation under the "PMP Act", which they did not challenge at any time under the statutory scheme; but that they have now approached this Court when they saw that the "2017 order" gave certain better benefits to land owners, the Right of User over whose lands were acquired under a subsequent notification. He vehemently argued that this was without error because it is up to the Government and the competent Authorities to decide how the benefits under each notification have to be taken care of and that there can be no common yardstick with respect to separate notifications issued at different points of time. He thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed.

11. I have examined and evaluated the afore rival contentions very carefully.

12. It is perspicuous, going by the submissions of Sri P. Chandrasekhar and Sri S.K. Balachandran, that their clients suffer angst noticing that persons whose lands were acquired for the same Project were given a better deal through the "2017 order". This distress certainly is justified, but the crucial question is whether this is contrary to the principles of law.

13. As I have said above, when I considered this case on 07.09.2021, a doubt was raised at the Bar as to whether the lands acquired under the notification dated 03.09.2010 were treated differently and some land owners given benefits under the "2017 order", while the petitioners denied. Had this been the truth, then certainly, this Court would have intervened and may have even read down the "2017 order" to make it applicable to all the land owners.

14. In fact, Sri P. Chandrasekhar and Sri S.K. Balachandran specifically pointed that a certain Sri Vishwanathan, whose land was governed under the notification dated 03.09.2010 had been given the benefit of the "2017 order", but this was strongly controverted by Sri Mohammed Al Rafi, arguing that the said land was, in fact, included in the next notification dated 13.12.2012. He showed me Ext. P5 produced along with W.P.(C) No. 19957/2020 in substantiation, as also the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the competent Authority in the said case, wherein, this fact has been expressly stated. Pertinently, the petitioners were not able to controvert this on cogent materials. Therefore, as now matters stand, the documents on record would indicate that there were two Phases for the Project. Phase I having been completed prior to 31.12.2011; while Phase II began thereafter.

15. The properties of the petitioners were, admittedly, included in Phase I and the rights of user over them acquired under notification dated 03.09.2010; while the said user over the properties involved in Phase II were acquired based on subsequent notifications including the one dated 13.12.2012. Therefore, the only germane question now before this Court is whether the benefits granted to land owners under all such notifications ought to have been similar, if not identical; or whether it is up to the Government to take a different call quad hoc the subsequent notifications, based on the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time.

16. Going by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, they say that Phase I went on smoothly and that its work was completed before 31.12.2011. However, when Phase II began, objections were raised by various land owners, which led to the Government to decide on a Package be given to them, which finally culminated in the "2017 order". Since these benefits were confined to those people, the rights of user over whose lands were acquired subsequent to the notification dated 03.09.2010, prima facie, I am of the view that the Government was certainly justified in creating a package specifically for that class of persons, even though the same were not made available for the land owners of the properties involved in Phase I of the project.

17. I say so because, even though the project is one, it was taken forward in two Phases and which were governed by different notifications, Had any of the persons included in the same notification been treated differently, the matter would have been different and this Court would have certainly intervened. However, the uncontested materials on record would establish limpidly that the rights of user over lands acquired under the notification dated 03.09.2010 were treated equally and all its land owners given the same benefits, which they had accepted without demur, forgoing their statutory remedies against the same. It was only subsequently, when Phase II began and further notifications were issued that a different package for compensation was offered by the Government of Kerala, perhaps to quell the unrest then notice; and therefore, I fail to fathom how the petitioners could then wake up and demand that they also be given the same benefits, merely because their lands are either adjourning or similarly situated.

18. To paraphrase, as long as the lands covered by the same notification were not treated unequally and as long as all the land owners under the same notification had been given identical benefits, I cannot see any reason for the petitioners to claim that they should be offered those which were granted to the owners of lands under subsequent notifications, particularly when it is without contest that it is under a different Phase of the Project, namely Phase II.

In summation and edificed on the reasons above, I cannot find favour with the submissions of the petitioners and am certainly of the view that these writ petitions deserve only to be dismissed. It is so ordered.