1. Under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User Inland) Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'), the competent authority is authorised, for the purpose of laying pipelines for transport of petroleum and for such incidental and attended purposes, to take certain specified action as is enumerated in the Act.

2. The Gas Authority of India Limited (for short, 'GAIL') proposed a scheme for the purpose of transport of natural gas from Cochin to Mangalore through the Kottanad-Bangalore pipeline route. This pipeline travels through the Madathumpady Village in Thrissur where the petitioner's 67 cents of land is situated. The petitioner asserts that his land is being used by him for personal cultivation and that a part of it houses his residence. He claims that the laying of the pipeline through his property would cause perdition to it and that the compensation paid under the terms of the Act would be of no consequence and would offer no real reparation. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition pleading that the pipeline, that is now proposed to travel through his property, should not be so laid and for directions to the respondents to change the alignment of the pipeline so as to ensure that it goes through other wetlands and paddy fields without having to touch residential properties like that of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner's assertion is hinged on Section 7 of the Act, which reads as under:

“7. Central Government or State Government or Corporation to lay pipelines.- (1) Where the right of user in any land has vested in the Central Government or in any State Government or Corporation under section 6-

(i) it shall be lawful for any person authorized by the Central Government or such State Government or Corporation, as the case may be, and his servants and workmen to enter upon the land and lay pipelines or to do any other act necessary for the laying of pipelines:

Provided that no pipeline shall be laid under:-

(a) any land which, immediately before the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3, was used for residential purposes;

(b) any land on which there stands any permanent structure which was in existence immediately before the said date;

(c) any land which is appurtenant to a dwelling house; or

(d) any land at a depth which is less than one metre from the surface.”

3. The petitioner says that since the property, through which the respondents are now seeking to lay the pipeline, is a residential property, there is a statutory embargo against them in continuing the work. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that his entire 64 cents of land is a residential plot and that, therefore, that the rigor of Section 7, as extracted above, would apply to it in its full force. It is based on these assertions and allegations that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) to issue a writ or certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6 notification in Gazette of India dated 08.08.2013 as the same is repugnant to the Constitution of India.

(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the third respondent to direct the second respondent to forthwith stop all further activities pursuant to Ext.P6.

(iii) to declare that the petitioner's property is not liable to be acquired for the laying of pipeline as the notification in Gazette of India dated 08.08.2013 is against Section 7 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962;

(iv) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

4. I have heard Sri. Anoop. V.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Anand, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri. Mohammed Al Rafi, appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent - Union of India.

5. The