State Act on Acquisition of Right of User in Land for Pipelines Found Within State's Legislative Competence; Central and State Laws Can Coexist Harmoniously
In a significant judgment dated April 27, 2026, the Gujarat High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray) dismissed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Water & Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000. The petitioners had contended that the State Act encroached upon the Union's exclusive power to legislate on natural gas under Entry 53 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and was repugnant to the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, a Central Act.
The Court held that the State Act was enacted under Entry 42 of List III (Concurrent List), which empowers both Parliament and State Legislatures to legislate on acquisition and requisition of property. It rejected the argument that the Act was an impermissible attempt to regulate the transmission and supply of natural gas—a matter exclusively within Parliament’s domain. The Court distinguished the State Act from the Gujarat Gas (Regulation of Transmission, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2001, which the Supreme Court had earlier struck down for lack of legislative competence.
A detailed comparative analysis of the State Act, 2000, and the Central Act, 1962, revealed that both statutes were pari materia and shared a common object: acquisition of the right of user in land for laying pipelines. The Court emphasized that both Acts contain similar provisions concerning acquisition procedure, compensation, and restrictions on land use post-acquisition.
Crucially, both laws include a provision (Section 18) stating that their provisions are "in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force relating to acquisition of land." The Court relied on this clause, supported by Supreme Court precedents such as M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, to conclude that the Central Act does not occupy the entire field, thereby permitting State legislation on the subject. It held that no repugnancy arises under Article 254 of the Constitution because the two Acts can operate harmoniously without conflict.
The petitioners’ claims that the State Act infringed fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 were also dismissed. The Court reasoned that acquisition of the right of user is a facet of property rights, for which the Act provides reasonable and just compensation. The restrictions on land use serve to protect the pipelines and are neither arbitrary nor violative of fundamental rights.
The judgment also recognized the vital role of Gujarat State Petronet Limited in developing the State’s gas pipeline infrastructure, which is integral to the "Gas Based Economy" and industrial growth in Gujarat.
In conclusion, the Gujarat High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Water & Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000, affirming the State Legislature’s competence and rejecting the plea of repugnancy with the Central Act, 1962. The petitions were dismissed without costs.
Bottom line:-
The Gujarat Water & Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000 is constitutionally valid, enacted under Entry 42 of List III (Concurrent List), and is not repugnant to the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962; both Acts can coexist without conflict.
Statutory provision(s):
Gujarat Water & Gas Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 2000; Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962; Constitution of India, Article 254; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (referenced in arguments).
Champaklal Naranji Patel v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2892420
