On March 4, 2017, the Maharashtra government issued a notification for the temporary acquisition of land under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. Under the Act, land is temporarily acquired for a project while the permanent ownership of the land stays with the land owner. While the Act allows land owners to go back to using the land for its original purpose, it bars them from planting trees, digging wells and constructing buildings, dams and reservoirs on the land. In letters to the district administration and the environment minister of Maharashtra in March 2019, the Guhagar Taluka GAIL Pipeline Sangharsh Samiti (a collective of land owners opposing the pipeline project) and the Nirantar Konkan Kruti Samiti (a collective of youth working towards sustainable development of the Konkan region) asked for the work on the project to be stopped. The letters stated that not all land owners were issued notices as a result of which not all of them could raise their concerns/objections within the stipulated time frame of 21 days under the Act. They also wrote in the letters that temporary land acquisition for laying the pipeline and construction work were being done by forcefully misusing police machinery to intimidate the land owners. They further alleged that land owners were not present when the _panchnama _(record of observation by five people) of the land was done and that their signatures were forged. The organisations are yet to receive a response to their complaints. In letters to the district collector, the villagers opposing the project have demanded compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, instead of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act. There are currently overlapping interpretations of which law shall prevail, as the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act only envisages the acquisition of Right of Use of land whereas the LARR Act results in full acquisition of ownership. As of 2020, the government was seeking to amend the former to fix the compensation amount to be paid for right of use.
Refusal to give up land for the project, Complaint against procedural violations, Demand for more compensation than promised
Has the Conflict Ended?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Land Acquisition Laws, Other
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community? What was the decision of the concerned government department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Out of Court
Status of Case In Court
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors
Official name of the criminal law. Did the case reach trial?
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Nature of Protest
Complaints, petitions, memorandums to officials
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Western Concessions Private Limited
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of Corporate Authorities Approached
Other Parties Involved in the Conflict: