IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4363 of 2008 Between: K.L. Lakshminarayana ..... PETITIONER AND The IOC Limited, Bangalore, Rep. by its General Manager, Karanataka District and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.NAGAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.P.V.S.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4363 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the possession of land of an extent of Ac.2.68 cents, comprised in Sy.Nos.316-1C, 316-3 and 316-5 of Gangavaram village and mandal, Chittoor District, belonging to the petitioner, for the purpose of laying pipeline, without initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal, arbitrary, null and void. Heard Sri A.P.Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Y.Nagaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Indian Oil Corporation of India, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that respondent Nos.1 and 2 initially sought to lay a gas pipeline through lands belonging to others, that with the intervention of the local politicians, the original alignment was changed and the respondents are proposing to lay a pipeline on his land, and that he made representation dated 26.10.2006, calling upon respondent No.1 not to change the alignment of the pipeline. The petitioner further pleaded that he got issued lawyer’s notice dated 29.01.2007 to respondent No.1, calling upon him not to change the alignment, apart from making a representation dated 10.12.2007 to respondent No.2. The petitioner also averred that respondent No.2 gave reply dated 21.02.2007, wherein it is stated that the proposal was referred to the Chief Construction Manager, IOC, Chennai and that joint inspection is to be carried out regarding the feasibility of the proposal, that so far draft notification proposals were not submitted to the Government of India under Sec.3(1) of the Act and that after making joint inspection, a decision will be taken on the above issue. At the hearing, Sri A.P.Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without initiating appropriate proceedings under the Act, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been highhandedly seeking to lay pipeline over the land of the petitioner. On instructions, Sri P.V.Sanjay Kumar submitted that the petitioner suppressed the material facts. He stated that in the month of June, 2007, draft notification under Sec.3(1) of the Act was issued. Though the name of the petitioner is not mutated in the revenue records, on coming to know that he purchased the property, notice was issued to him, calling for objections and enquiry is being held on the objections filed by the petitioner. He further stated that the brother of the petitioner attended the enquiry recently, and the present writ petition is filed without disclosing all these facts. According to the learned Standing Counsel, a notification has already been issued under Sec.3(1) of the Act. Under Sec.4 of the Act, after issuance of notification, it shall be lawful for any person authorized by the Central Government or by the State Government or the Corporation which proposes to lay pipelines for transporting petroleum or any mineral, and his servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land specified in the notification and do all other acts, which are mentioned in Clauses-(b) to (f). Since the learned Standing Counsel made his submissions on instructions, though a copy of the notification has not been filed, I have no reason to doubt the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that notification has already been issued. This being so, no exception to the action of the respondents in seeking to enter into the petitioner’s land, pending disposal of the objections filed under Section 5 and issuance of declaration under Section 6 can be taken. In the above mentioned circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The respondents, after hearing the objections of the petitioner, shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed under Sec.5, on his objections, he shall be free to avail appropriate remedies, available under law. In this view of the matter, there is no need to deal with the other contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties advanced on merits. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 29.02.2008 Dsr