1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to lay the natural gas pipeline through the lands of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.230, 244, 244/A and 246 situated at Puttapaka village, Manthani Mandal, Peddapally District without issuing any notice, as illegal and improper and consequently direct the respondents to change the alignment of the proposed gas pipeline to other Government lands.

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners and possessors of the above land, eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation in the said land. It is said that without issuing any notice and without taking consent of the writ petitioners, the respondents have commenced laying of a pipeline through the lands of the petitioners and others. The action of the respondents in laying the pipeline without following due process of law is subject matter of challenge herein.

3. The affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition itself is silent as to the violation of the provisions of law. Taking a clue from the averments in the counter, the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that the violation is in respect of the procedure contemplated under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”). The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was issued on 07.06.2014, the notification under Section 6(3) of the Act came to be made beyond a period of one year, whereby the entire proceedings get vitiated. It is further stated that after issuance of notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, an obligation is cast on the authority to conduct an enquiry so as to allow or disallow the objections. It is stated that, in the instant case, neither any notice was given to the petitioners nor any enquiry as contemplated under Section 5(1) of the Act was conducted nor a Gazette notification was issued within a period of one year as required under Section 6(3) of the Act. Taking the court through the proceedings issued by the officers of the competent authority dated 16.04.2018, which is said to be a notice under Section 10(4) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even this notice does not refer to holding an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5(1) and the consequential proceedings under Section 6(3) of the Act, before deciding the quantum of compensation to be paid.

4. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. A detailed counter came to be filed explaining the circumstances under which the pipeline came to be laid through the land of the petitioners. It is said that the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, is developing the Mallavaram Bhopal-Bhilwara-Vijaipur Natural Gas Pipeline Project and for formation of pipeline, land is acquired under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962. Twenty meters of the land (spur land) was acquired for the purpose of laying a pipeline underneath the surface of the soil, at a depth of over 2 meters. After the pipeline is laid, the land will be restored to its original position and possession will be handed over to the original owner. The only restriction on the land owners is that they cannot construct any building or permanent structure or plant trees at the place where the pipe line is passing. It is said that after issuing the statutory notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was published vide Gazette Notification 1701 dated 12.08.2015. The same was also displayed on the notice boards of the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, Office of the MPDO, Tahsildar Manthani, Police Station Manthani, Grama Panchayat office and office of V.R.O., on 18.09.2015 and 21.09.2015. It is said that notice issued under Section 6(1) of the Act was refused by the petitioners. Hence, the same was affixed in