ORDER : Jyoti Saran, J. Heard Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Chandra for the Indian Oil Corporation and Mr. Manojeshwar Prasad Sinha for the intervenors in I.A. No. 4109 of 2014 filed in support of the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioners have prayed for direction to the respondent authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation to divert the proposed Paradeep-Haldia-Barauni Crude Oil pipeline crossing through the village Maranchi - Hathidah in the district of Patna. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that two pipelines are already passing through the village and a third pipeline would turn the village into a danger zone inasmuch as highly inflammable materials would be passing through the pipeline increasing the risk factors of the villagers. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Indian Oil Corporation and its authorities in which it is stated that in the year 1963-64, acting under the provisions of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the land, in question, was acquired for the purpose of laying down of the pipelines. A notification dated 31.8.1963 has been placed at Annexure-A in support of the contentions which is followed by a declaration under Section 6 placed at Annexure-B dated 27.5.1964. It is the specific case of the Corporation that the persons whose land became part of acquisition were duly compensated. To establish the same, receipts and some of the papers have also been enclosed. It is the contention of the Corporation that the new pipeline is passing through twenty villages on the either side of river Ganga and whereas the Corporation has completed its project in all the villages but it was opposed when the project reached near village Maranchi although no land holders raised any objection to that effect. It is the stand of the corporation that the land, in question, is being used after getting requisite statutory clearance/permission from the Forest, Environment, National Highways Authority of India, PWD, Irrigation etc. and when the land, in question, was acquired in 1964 there was no protest. It is contended that the first pipeline was laid in the year 1964, the second was laid in and around 1980 and the third pipeline is being laid presently to meet the growing needs and in view of the low cost in transporting the crude. and when the land, in question, was acquired in 1964 there was no protest. It is contended that the first pipeline was laid in the year 1964, the second was laid in and around 1980 and the third pipeline is being laid presently to meet the growing needs and in view of the low cost in transporting the crude. The further contention of the Corporation is that laying down of the pipeline is completed and thus the issue raised in this petition praying for diversion, has been rendered infructuous. 4. Responding to the stand of the corporation, Dr. Singh appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sinha appearing for the intervenors, have tried to contest the position that the pipeline is not yet laid and relying upon the provisions of Section 7 of Act, it is contended that the authorities had to ensure compliance thereof and should have satisfied themselves that the land had no permanent structure nor was being used for residential purpose before embarking on the project. The argument was contested by Mr. Chandra who submitted that such exercise is to be done at the start of the project and is not to be done every time that a pipeline is laid, as is manifest from the statutory provision itself. It is stated that the project had commenced in the year 1963-64 and where after two pipelines have already been laid and thus such objection at this stage is misconceived and any construction on the land which stands acquired by the corporation as back as in 1963-64 would be an encroachment by such persons. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties this Court is not persuaded to grant indulgence to the issue raised. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.