IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9617 of 2001 Between: Ghandikota Venkata Gopala Krishna Murthy S/o.Venkata Subbaiah R/o.Jaggaiahpet Village and Mandal, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hindustan Pettoleum Corporation Ltd., Rep.by its Deputy Manager Vijayawada-Secunderabad Pipe Line Project incharge, Tadepalli, Guntur Dist. 2 The Competent Authority & Special Grade Deputy Collector Vijayawada- Secunderabad Pipe Line Project, H.P.C.L., Tadepalli, Guntur Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to lay pipe line in the land of the petitioner in an extent of 1 Acre 92.5 cents covered by Survey No.128 of Jaggaihpet Village and Mandal, Krishna District for the purpose of Vijayawada-Secunderabad pipe line project (VSPL) without acquiring the land either under Petroleun and Minerals pipe line Act, 1962 or under Land Acquisition Act is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.300-A of the Consitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.9617 of 2001 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in seeking to lay a pipeline in the land of the petitioner effecting Ac.1.92 ½ cents covered by Sy.No.128 of Jaggaiahpet Village and Mandal for the purpose of Vijayawada - Secunderabad Pipe Line Project(VSPL) without acquiring the land either under Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 or the Land Acquisition Act,1894 as arbitrary and illegal. Though initially this Court granted interim stay of laying of the pipeline subsequently after hearing both the parties by order dated.26- 07-2001 the interim order was vacated. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the order dated.26-07-2001 the respondents-Corporation proceeded with the laying of the pipeline and the same was completed. Having regard to the said fact nothing survives for adjudication on merits at this stage. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to take appropriate steps as available under law claiming compensation to which he is entitled to under law. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 30th January 2009 *TSNR