Point of law: The provisions of Section 5 and 6 of PMP Act would categorically show that the legislature attached much importance to the objections of the owner of the land in respect of acquisition of right of user in land, obviously, became the owner would be deprived of using his land, be partially. Therefore, the competent authority has to afford an opportunity of hearing to the land owner. It is like providing leeway to persuade the competent authority to drop the acquisition proceedings

ORDER:

The petitioners pray for a writ of mandamus declaring the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Notification S.O.No.2098 dated 06.09.2017 issued under Section 3(1) and the Declaration S.O.No.637 dated 11.04.2018 issued under Section 6(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the PMP Act’) in so far as the lands of the petitioners in Sy.No.126/7 of Loya and Sy.No.153/3 of Munagapadu villages of G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioners’ case succinctly is thus:

(a) The petitioners are the farmers owning agricultural lands in Loya and Munagapadu Villages. The petitioners 1 & 2 are the husband and wife and own an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.126/7 of Loya village and the 3rd petitioner own an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in Sy.No.153/3 of Munagapadu Village. Whereas the petitioners 4 & 5 being husband and wife own an extent of Ac.0.90 cents and Ac.1.07 cents respectively in Sy.No.153/3 of Munagapadu Village and they are cultivating respective lands and eking out their livelihood. While so, of late, the officials of 2nd respondent Corporation visited the lands and demanded them to deliver possession of the lands for the purpose of laying the pipeline running from Paradeep in Orissa to Hyderabad called Paradeep-Hyderabad Pipeline Project. There were cotton and red gram crops in the petitioners’ lands at that time. The officials gave copies of the notifications under Sections 3(1) and 6 of the PMP Act to the petitioners, on perusal of which the petitioners came to know that the respondents have issued a notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act on 06.09.2017 to acquire the lands for laying the aforesaid pipeline. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was also seems to have issued on 16.04.2018. However, no notices whatsoever were issued to the petitioners. So far as the petitioners 1 & 2 are concerned, there was no declaration under Section 6 of the PMP Act, but the respondents want to take possession of their lands even without publishing the declaration under Section 6 of the PMP Act. Hence, the action of the respondents in attempting to take possession of the lands without following the mandatory procedure is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(b) On further enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the Paradeep-Hyderabad Pipeline project was initiated in the year 2016 and the respondents have fixed Peg markings which fall under the project pipeline alignment. In the year 2016, the lands of the petitioners did not fall in the pipeline alignment. The land acquisition proceedings were completed in all the Mandals except G.Konduru Mandal. At that time, due to interference of vested interests, the land acquisition proceedings in G.Konduru Mandal were stopped for the purpose of changing the alignment of the pipeline to suit the needs of the vested interest and to exclude their lands from the alignment. Originally the pipeline alignment was going in straight line between G.Konduru Village and IOCL Terminal at Kavuluru Village. However, after changing the pipeline alignment, Section 3(1) notification under the PMP Act was issued on 06.09.2017 proposing to acquire the lands of the petitioners and some others with changed alignment. The changed alignment is very much expensive as it took a long deep curve making the project much costlier. In the process, the respondents have given a go by to the mandatory procedure contemplated under the PMP Act and the PMP Rules. A duty is cast on the 2nd respondent, who is the competent authority, to cause public notification inviting the objections and consider the same and pass appropriate order. However, nothing was done in that regard. Hence, the impugned notificati