ORDER :

K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the notification issued under Section 3(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for brevity 'the Act').

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring an extent of Acs. 9-20 cents in Survey Nos. 59/1B and 60/2 of Sunnampadu Village, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District; the second respondent issued notification under Section 6(1) of the Act on 18.9.2019 declaring that the petitioner's land is required for laying a pipeline; at that juncture, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities and came to know that Section 3(1) notification was issued under the Act on 6.9.2017 and that objections under Section 5(1) of the Act were called for and that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued; no notice under Section 3 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and hence he could not file his objections; the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is not communicated to him; the second respondent was appointed as competent authority under the Act and as he was drawing salary and other emoluments, as an employee of the Corporation he will have bias in favour of the Corporation, hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to drop all further proceedings.

3. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the second respondent stating, inter alia, that the Government of India undertook transportation of petroleum products from Paradip in the State of Odisha via State of Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad through pipeline project "Paradip-Hyderabad Pipeline Project"; the Indian Oil Corporation, a Government of India undertaking, has embarked upon laying prestigious 1212 Kms. long pipeline; Section 3(1) notification was published on 11.4.2018 and Section 6 declaration was published on 18.9.2019; individual notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Act on 17.11.2017 giving 21 days' time for raising objections under Section 5(1) of the Act, but no objections whatsoever were filed by the petitioner; hence, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued; panchanama was also conducted in the presence of Village Revenue Officer and the petitioner refused to sign the panchanama; the substance notices under Sections 3(1) and 6(1) were also published at all the public places as per the Act; the second respondent entered into the Government service as a Probationary Revenue Inspector in the Revenue Department for the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1995; he worked as Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate for more than 4 years from 2010 to 2016 and exercised quasi-judicial powers; he completed his B.L. Degree and enrolled as an Advocate in 1991; he also practiced at various Courts upto 1995; he also passed Departmental tests in Civil and Criminal, Revenue and Survey tests; for the notices issued under Sections 3(1) and 6(1) of the Act, acknowledgments were also obtained from the petitioner.

4. Reply affidavit to the counter of the second respondent is filed by the petitioner stating, inter alia, that no notice whatsoever was issued to him under Section 3(1) of the Act and that the notice which was alleged to have been served on him on 17.11.2017 does not refer under which section the notice was issued; he also filed a table showing the discrepancies in the extents in various proceedings and the same is extracted thus: