A retired Tahsildar with a trained legal mind and experience in exercising quasi-judicial powers can be appointed as the competent authority under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.

JUDGMENT

Even though, the matter is posted under the caption ‘For admission’, as the pleadings are complete, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the main Writ Petition.

2. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the notification dated 06.09.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the PMP Act’), proposing to lay pipelines from Paradeep to Hyderabad.

3. According to the petitioners, they own house site plots in Narava village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and the proposed pipelines will pass through the said house plots.

4. Earlier, the petitioners herein approached this Court, by way of filing Writ Petition No.13439 of 2020, wherein the petitioners herein challenged the subject notification dated 06.09.2017, issued under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act. This Court, way of an order dated 07.12.2020, partly allowed the said Writ Petition, setting aside the notification under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act to the extent of lands of the petitioners, while maintaining the notification dated 06.09.2017 issued under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act and further directed to issue notices to the petitioners and to afford opportunity of personal hearing on their objections and to pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with the governing laws and rules expeditiously and further directed that till the completion of the said exercise, the respondents should not meddle with the properties of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent-competent authority, who is also shown as 4th respondent by name in the present Writ Petition, issued notices, calling upon the petitioners to submit their objections and in response to the notices, the petitioners herein submitted their objections on 03.02.2021.

5. While the things being so, now by way of the present Writ Petition, the petitioners herein are assailing the notification dated 06.09.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, principally on the ground that the very appointment of the 4th respondent, who is a retired Tahsildar, as a competent authority, is impermissible, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Resisting the Writ Petition and denying the averments and allegations made in the writ affidavit, a counter affidavit, deposed by the 3rd respondent, has been filed.

7. Heard Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Ashok Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation, apart from perusing the material available on record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the questioned notification is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and opposed to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2016) 9 SCC 791 = 2017(2) ALD 118 SC and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that the impugned notification is neither sustainable nor tenable and the very appointment of the 4th respondent as competent authority cannot be sustained and the 3rd respondent does not fall under any one of the categories indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment and the 4th respondent is not a legally trained person.

9. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation contends that the very Writ Petition filed by the petitioners herein is not maintainable and the petitioners herein cannot be permitted to maintain the present Writ Petition, as the petitioners herein already suffered an orde