THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P. No. 11437 of 2001 Dated. 23–12-2010 Between: B.N.K. Meena …Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 11437 of 2001 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to lay the Pipeline for Thermal project of the 4th respondent running from Thatipaka in East Godavari District to Kondapalli in Krishna District, in particular through the lands and hindering the buildings of the petitioner in survey Nos. 932/4, 932/5 and 932/6 in an extent of Ac.03-30 cents situated in Nagannagudem hamlet of Pedavegi village and Mandal in West Godavari District. The singular contention on which the laying of pipeline for the 4th respondent through the petitioner’s land is assailed is that there was no notification in the official Gazette and no publication by the competent authority under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’). The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit asserting inter alia (a) that the writ petition is not maintainable since the Union of India, which is the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, has not been impleaded as respondent; (b) that the father of the petitioner, acting on her behalf, has given consent for handing over possession of the land to the answering respondent for laying a gas pipeline and to that effect has signed a consent letter, the mediators report was signed by the father drawn up in the presence of the officials of the respondents and Revenue Officials of the State and the petitioner’s father, evidencing handing over of possession and crop was damaged as a result of the laying of pipeline; (c) that under the powers conferred under Section 3 (1) of the Act the intention to acquire the user of the land was declared by the notification in the official Gazette dated 28-11-2000 and the substance of the notification was also published in the manner prescribed and thereafter declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act was also published and only thereafter has the laying of pipeline work been taken up; and (d) that not only was consent given as already stated, there was also no objection to the laying of the pipeline. The pipeline was laid much before filing of the writ petition. In view of the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent with regard to fulfilling of all statutory procedures preceding the laying of the pipeline, the substantive challenge to the action of the respondents must fail. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation paid on account of the acquisition of the right of user, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedies for seeking higher compensation under Section 10 of the Act. The substantive challenge in the writ petition must however fail and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 23-12-2010 Pvks/*