JUDGMENT : 1. Under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User Inland) Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Act'), the competent authority is authorised, for the purpose of laying pipelines for transport of petroleum and for such incidental and attended purposes, to take certain specified action as is enumerated in the Act. 2. The Gas Authority of India Limited (for short, 'GAIL') proposed a scheme for the purpose of transport of natural gas from Cochin to Mangalore through the Kottanad-Bangalore pipeline route. This pipeline travels through the Madathumpady Village in Thrissur where the petitioner's 67 cents of land is situated. The petitioner asserts that his land is being used by him for personal cultivation and that a part of it houses his residence. He claims that the laying of the pipeline through his property would cause perdition to it and that the compensation paid under the terms of the Act would be of no consequence and would offer no real reparation. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition pleading that the pipeline, that is now proposed to travel through his property, should not be so laid and for directions to the respondents to change the alignment of the pipeline so as to ensure that it goes through other wetlands and paddy fields without having to touch residential properties like that of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's assertion is hinged on Section 7 of the Act, which reads as under: “7. 3. The petitioner's assertion is hinged on Section 7 of the Act, which reads as under: “7. Central Government or State Government or Corporation to lay pipelines.- (1) Where the right of user in any land has vested in the Central Government or in any State Government or Corporation under section 6- (i) it shall be lawful for any person authorized by the Central Government or such State Government or Corporation, as the case may be, and his servants and workmen to enter upon the land and lay pipelines or to do any other act necessary for the laying of pipelines: Provided that no pipeline shall be laid under:- (a) any land which, immediately before the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3, was used for residential purposes; (b) any land on which there stands any permanent structure which was in existence immediately before the said date; (c) any land which is appurtenant to a dwelling house; or (d) any land at a depth which is less than one metre from the surface.” 3. The petitioner says that since the property, through which the respondents are now seeking to lay the pipeline, is a residential property, there is a statutory embargo against them in continuing the work. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that his entire 64 cents of land is a residential plot and that, therefore, that the rigor of Section 7, as extracted above, would apply to it in its full force. It is based on these assertions and allegations that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ or certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6 notification in Gazette of India dated 08.08.2013 as the same is repugnant to the Constitution of India. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the third respondent to direct the second respondent to forthwith stop all further activities pursuant to Ext.P6. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the third respondent to direct the second respondent to forthwith stop all further activities pursuant to Ext.P6. (iii) to declare that the petitioner's property is not liable to be acquired for the laying of pipeline as the notification in Gazette of India dated 08.08.2013 is against Section 7 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962; (iv) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 4. I have heard Sri. Anoop. V.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Anand, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri. Mohammed Al Rafi, appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent - Union of India. 5. The constitutive facts, as are required for the resolution of the lis before me, reveal that a notification was issued by the Government of India bearing date as 08.08.2013 and published in the Gazette of India under the provisions of the Act declaring that the laying of the pipeline is for a public purpose and evidencing its intention to acquire the right of user of the lands mentioned therein. As per this notification, the right of user in large extents of land is sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Act, one of which happens to belong to the petitioner. The petitioner says that this notification is illegal and therefore should be quashed because it is in violation of Section 7 of the Act as extracted above. 6. Sri.K.Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, au contraire, vehemently submits that the assertions of the petitioner is completely without basis and without any factual sustenance because the right of user over the land of the petitioner, that is sought to be acquired, does not in any manner interfere with his residence and only that stretch of land which is on the boundary of his property would be acquired. Sri.K.Anand is ardent in his submission that Section 7 of the Act, extracted above, creates an embargo from acquisition of the right of user only over lands on which a permanent residential structure is in existence immediately before the date of the notification and he says that in the present case, the area identified for running the pipeline is carefully separated from the area where the petitioner's residential house is situated. In effect what Sri.Anand, learned senior counsel says is that as per the proposed alignment, the petitioner's residential house will not be touched at all and that the pipeline would travel without causing any prejudice or detriment to him through the boundary of the property. 7. When this matter was taken up for admission on 16.05.2017, this Court, by way of an interim direction, asked the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the petitioner's property but had clarified that they will be at liberty to continue with the work in the rest of the alignment. I had made this order primarily with the intention of creating an atmosphere of conviviality between the respondents and the petitioner under which they would be able to sort out their differences by mediation or through an out of court arrangement, so that the right of user over the petitioner's property could be acquired by the respondents without causing any chagrin to the petitioner. I am told that pending this writ petition, the petitioner and the respondents had extensive discussions in this matter and that they have tried their best to ensure that the pipeline is drawn without any detriment or prejudice to the petitioner. 8. Sri.Anoop. V. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a meeting held on 03.07.2017, the respondents had agreed substantially to certain suggestions made by his client, though they are unwilling to accept that the pipeline be taken either through a different alignment or through the property of his neighbour, even though the said neighbour is ready to accommodate such pipeline through his property. 9. I see that the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.10408 of 2017 producing Ext.P16 sketch and Ext.P17 series of photographs to show that the alignment of the pipeline can be changed by the respondents about a distance of 3 kilometers away from his property so as to take it through wetlands and paddy fields without having to disturb residential areas. 9. I see that the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.10408 of 2017 producing Ext.P16 sketch and Ext.P17 series of photographs to show that the alignment of the pipeline can be changed by the respondents about a distance of 3 kilometers away from his property so as to take it through wetlands and paddy fields without having to disturb residential areas. Sri.Anoop V. Nair has also referred to Ext.P18 sketch and he contends that as per the original alignment, the petitioner's property and other residential properties were completely exempt from the acquisition of the right of user. Sri.K.Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that these were only proposals at its nascent stage and that it is after evaluating the merits and difficulties in initiating and continuing with such alignments that the second and third respondents have now finalized the alignment which presently runs through the property of the petitioner. 10. I have considered the syllogistic and opposing contentions of the parties quite in detail. One thing is certain that the pipeline is for a public purpose and even the parties are ad idem on that. There is no dispute that Ext.P6 notification has been issued by the Government of India in valid exercise of its powers and for a legitimate public cause. 11. The only case of the petitioner is that by laying the pipeline in the alignment that is now approved, his property would be devalued and subjected to deracination. It is this apprehension that has led the petitioner to file this writ petition and his contentions are underpinned on the assertion that there are other lands available in the vicinity, through which the pipeline can be taken without disturbing his residential house. There is no doubt that the petitioner's residence is situated in the said property. The question is whether the rigor of Section 7 of the Act would apply in such a manner that the respondents would be incompetent to acquire the right of user over any area of the said property, even excluding the area which accommodates the residential house. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that this cannot be done because according to him, Section 7 talks about residential property and creates an embargo against acquisition of right of user over the same. 12. It is the specific assertion of the petitioner that this cannot be done because according to him, Section 7 talks about residential property and creates an embargo against acquisition of right of user over the same. 12. I am afraid, on a careful reading of Section 7, that the contentions of the petitioner cannot endure and cannot be found to have forensic sustenance. This is because the proviso to Section 7 mandates that no pipeline shall be laid under any land which was used for residential purposes immediately before the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. It is, therefore, perspicuous that what the Statute provides is that the pipeline shall not be laid to disturb the residential user of the property. It does not mean in any manner that the entire property will have to be exempted and that the pipeline cannot be laid even through areas which is not being used for residential purposes. In the case at hand, even the petitioner admits that the area which is now identified by respondents 2 and 3 for laying of the pipeline is not the area where the residential house is situated. He does not have a case that by the acquisition of user of this area, the enjoyment of the residence or its appurtenant facilities would in any manner be curtailed or diminished. That being so, I am certain that the contentions of the petitioner based on Section 7 of the Act would be of no help to him. 13. That being said, further consideration before me is whether the present alignment can be allowed to continue, ensuring that the petitioner does not suffer prejudice by its constraints unreasonably. It is obvious from the pleadings on record and the various sketches presented before me that the present alignment of the pipeline has been designed in such a manner so as to cause the least amount of inconvenience to the petitioner. 14. Sri.K.Anand, the learned senior counsel says that the latest sketch, which was prepared after informally hearing the petitioner's objections, has also been placed on record as Ext.R2 (a). As per this sketch, the pipeline would enter the petitioner's property through its southern side and travel westwards through its boundary and would be laid at a distance of about 10 meters inward from the outer limit of the boundary. As per this sketch, the pipeline would enter the petitioner's property through its southern side and travel westwards through its boundary and would be laid at a distance of about 10 meters inward from the outer limit of the boundary. Sri.K.Anand submits that this 10 meters inward alignment is provided because such a distance is mandatorily required to be left and that this is the best that could be done by the GAIL so as to help the petitioner. This sketch is admittedly not an authorised sketch; it is only a rough one. I, therefore, deem it idoneous to clarify that Ext.R2 (a) sketch, not being an officially authorised one but only a rough sketch, it is relied by me only to provide some ballpark reference to both parties when the work of the pipeline is continued. This sketch is not to provide the petitioner a further cause that the pipeline should be laid only in that manner but it is only intended to give a rough alignment of the pipeline to be laid causing the least inconvenience to him. 15. At this point of time, Sri.Anoop V.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client has now persuaded a neighbour on the western side of his property to surrender his property for acquisition of the right of user to the respondents even without a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. He makes this submission to impress upon me that if the pipeline is taken through the property of the neighbour, the property of the petitioner can be completely avoided. I am afraid that I cannot immediately act upon these suggestions because there is nothing on record to show that the neighbour or anyone else has so agreed to surrender their lands and also since I am not sure that respondents 2 and 3 would be in a position, logistically and technically, to make such a deviation at this point of time. However, since this submission has been made on record, I permit the petitioner to place such suggestion along with an appropriate request enclosing a no objection certificate or such other consent letters from the neighbours before the appropriate authority of GAIL and I leave it to the Authority concerned to consider whether this can be looked into and acted upon taking into account the factors of technical feasibility and logistical compliance. 16. 16. As I have already indicated above, the purpose for which Ext.P6 notification has been issued is a public one. There is no case that the pipeline cannot be constructed. The only case is that the pipeline be constructed with a different alignment. Since the purpose is one that would cause benefit to the public at large, I am certain that the apprehension of the petitioner with respect to his property would have to be subservient to the larger public cause. In any case, even as per the present alignment as is roughly shown in Ext.R2(a) sketch, the petitioner's residential property would not be touched at all. In fact, it would cause no real detriment or inconvenience at all because the pipeline runs 3 meters below the ground and the petitioner would be permitted to use that area also for all other purposes, other than for construction, including for agriculture and other cultivation. There is, therefore, no perceptible or conspicuous prejudice caused to the petitioner by this alignment and I see no reason why the respondents should be restrained from continuing the work specially because, as per my order dated 16.05.2017, the GAIL was in any case permitted to complete the work through the present alignment on either side of the petitioner's property. 17. For the reasons that I have recorded above and the circumstances that have been shown afore, I am afraid that I cannot in any manner grant any of the reliefs as has been sought for by the petitioner in this case. I, therefore, have no other option but to close this writ petition, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities of the GAIL with the alternate suggestion made by him as recorded in paragraph 15 herein along with the necessary consent and no objection letters from the owners of the neighbouring properties and the Authority of the GAIL will be obligated to consider such suggestion, of course, after taking into account its feasibility and other technical evaluation and criterion. I make it clear that the liberty granted to the petitioner, as afore, is not to be construed by anyone, including the petitioner, to mean that this Court has ordered any deviation in the alignment and my intent is only to give such liberty to the petitioner to make such an application, which will be considered by the GAIL and no more. 17. 17. Needless to say, the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits including compensation as he is eligible and as is prescribed by the terms of the Act and nothing contained in this judgment would be deemed or inferred to mean that the petitioner would not be entitled to the same. This writ petition is thus closed.