ORDER:

The petitioner, who claims ownership over a house bearing Door No.C-41 of Bandivanlavooru, Madhavaram Post, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District had approached this Court earlier, by way of W.P.No.23001 of 2020, challenging the action of the respondents in seeking to lay a 2nd gas pipeline allegedly through the dwelling house of the petitioner. After hearing both sides, this Court, by an order dated 21.01.2021 had directed the respondents–Corporation, to lay the gas pipeline, without affecting the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petition was disposed of on 29.01.2021, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, in the event of any deviation from the alignment of the pipeline shown in the plan, produced before the Court.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition contending that the respondents are seeking to lay the pipeline, through the house of the petitioner again. This Court had directed the Principal District Judge, Chittoor to submit a report as to the alignment of the pipeline and whether there was any danger to the house of the petitioner on account of the laying of the pipeline.

3. The Principal District Judge, Chittoor had filed a report dated 20.09.2021 in which it was stated that the pipeline is being laid strictly in accordance with the alignment shown in the plan and that the said pipeline is not going through or under the house of the petitioner.

4. The respondents have also filed a counter affidavit submitting that the petitioner had earlier been granted compensation on account of the laying of the 1st gas pipeline and that the 2nd gas pipeline is also going through the same area. The counter further stated that the petitioner after receiving compensation and after laying of the 1st gas pipeline, had constructed the present house and as such, the petitioner cannot raise any complaint due to the laying of the 2nd gas pipeline.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd gas pipeline is violating certain requirements of Section 7 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962.

6. Sri S.V.S.Siva Ram learned counsel, appearing for Domnic Fernandes, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that there is no violation of these provisions as the 2nd pipeline has been laid at a depth of 7meters and after additional covering being provided for the said pipeline in accordance with the standards maintained for such pipelines.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is clear that the objections raised by the petitioner on the question of deviation from the original alignment are not correct. Further, the petitioner had been granted liberty to approach this Court in the event of deviation from the alignment only. As there is no such deviation, nothing further survives in this writ petition.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

10.10.2022 RJS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4897 of 2021

10.10.2022 RJS