JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Mr. Shimpi waives service for Respondent No.1. Mr. Khandeparkar waives service for Respondent No.2. Dr. Sathe learned senior counsel waives service for Respondent No.3 in WP No. 7115 of 2022. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25 March, 2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 Competent Authority thereby rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for application of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act 2013 (for short “Fair Compensation Act”) for determination of compensation for acquisition of Right of User of his lands under the provisions of Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962 (for short “PMP Act”). The Petitioner also seeks a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents to apply the provisions of the Fair Compensation Act for determination of compensation for acquisition of Right of User of his lands under the provisions of the PMP Act and to make good the said amounts in a time bound manner.

Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as under:

3. The Petitioner is the owner of five portion of lands situated in Village Wakas, Taluka Karjat, Dist. Raigad bearing:

4. Some time in the year 2007, the Respondent No.1 had assigned the project of transportation of natural gas from Andhra Pradesh to different parts of the country passing through Maharashtra to the Respondent No.3.

5. On 1 October, 2008, the Respondent No.1 issued a notification under Section 3 of the PMP Act notifying its intention of laying down a pipeline and for Acquisition of Right of User in Petitioner’s land bearing S.Nos. 47/1/A/1 (Old Survey No. 81/1A/1) admeasuring Hectare 0.61 Are.

6. On 30 November, 2009, the Respondent No.1 issued a notification under Section 3 of the PMP Act notifying its intention of laying down a pipeline and for Acquisition of Right of User in Petitioner’s land bearing S. No. 49/13/A/24, (Old Survey No. 83/13+24) admeasuring Hectare 0.70 Are. Similarly on 6 May, 2009, the Respondent No.1 issued a Notification for declaration of Acquisition of Right of User under Section 6 of the PMP Act for the Petitioner’s land bearing S. No. 47/1/A/1 (Old Survey No. 81/1A/1) admeasuring Hectare 0.46 Are.

7. On 9 March, 2010, the Respondent No.1 issued issued a Notification for declaration of Acquisition of Right of User under Section 6 of the PMP Act for the Petitioner’s land bearing S. No. 49/13/A/24, (Old Survey No. 83/13+24) admeasuring Hectare 0.70 Are. On 9 April, 2011, the Respondent No.2-Competent Authority determined the compensation under Section 10 of the PMP Act for the Petitioner’s land bearing S. No. 49/13/A/24, (Old Survey No. 83/13+24) admeasuring Hectare 0.70 Are. According to the Petitioner, the said pipeline was passing through all the five lands of the Petitioners and the three survey numbers in question in the present petition, namely, S. No. 47/1/B, (Old Survey No. 81/1/B) admeasuring Hectare 0.37 Are; S. No. 49/5, (Old Survey No. 83/5) admeasuring Hectare 0.58 Are; and S. No. 49/17, (Old Survey No. 83/17) admeasuring Hectare 0.26 Are were never notified.

8. On 1 January, 2014, the said Fair Compensation Act was notified for dealing with the various issues in relation to land acquisition and payment of compen