JUDGMENT : The captioned writ petitions are filed raising certain issues under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. Even though they are filed by different persons, material aspects are one and the same, and therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment. 2. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19148 of 2013 are owners of land situate in Survey Nos.792/1 and 792/2 in Poomangalam Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur District. The 1st petitioner has an extent of 1.97 acres of land in the aforesaid survey numbers, by virtue of a registered settlement deed No.2/1958 of Vadakkumkara S.R.O. Second petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. He owns 1.53 acres of land in the aforesaid survey numbers and the Village referred to thereunder, by virtue of deed executed by the 1st petitioner in his favour. 2. By Ext.P1 notification under Sec.3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 [hereinafter called, 'Act, 1962'] was issued by the 3rd respondent, proposing to acquire the right of user in lands within the Vadakkumkara and Poomangalam Villages for the purpose of laying pipelines for transportation of natural gas through Kochi-Kootanad-Bengaluru-Mangalore pipeline. According to the petitioners, petitioners' lands were not included in Ext.P1. By Ext.P2 declaration, the lands covered by Ext.P1 stood vested in the Government, thus completing the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, with the issuance of Exts.P1 and P2, the need of land for public purpose stand specified and there is no provision enabling acquisition for the very same purpose. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, Ext.P10 notification was issued dated 10.05.2013, which is a declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, 1962, pursuant to Ext.P3 notification. Accordingly, the writ petition was amended. 4. However, yet another notification i.e. Ext.P3 dated 27.09.2012 has been issued by the 1st respondent including the property of the petitioners for the very same public purpose. It is the contention of the petitioners that acquisition of petitioners' land is neither necessary nor justified. Though the petitioners filed objection to the acquisition in response to notice by the respondents, nothing is heard from them. The acquisition will render the entire property of the petitioners unfit for any purpose. It is the contention of the petitioners that acquisition of petitioners' land is neither necessary nor justified. Though the petitioners filed objection to the acquisition in response to notice by the respondents, nothing is heard from them. The acquisition will render the entire property of the petitioners unfit for any purpose. These are the background facts projected by the petitioners to sustain the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, viz., to quash Ext.P3 notification to the extent it is including the properties of the petitioners mentioned above, and for other related reliefs. 5. Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. That apart, it is stated that for the purpose of transportation of natural gas from Kochi to Kootanadu - Mangalore and Bangalore, pipelines have to be laid by the respondents through seven Districts in Kerala, running from Ernakulam to Kasaragod. According to the respondents, a notification was published in accordance with Sec.3(1) of the Act, declaring the intention to acquire the right of user of the lands in question, among other lands as per Ext.P3. After completing all statutory formalities only, 1st respondent acquired the right of user on the lands in question and vested it with the respondents under Sec.6(1) and 6(4) of the Act, as per Ext.P10 notification. 6. It is also stated that the proposed lines were decided on the basis of preliminary survey and it is not final. In case there are any objectionable elements along the proposed route, the alignment requires deviation. Section 5 of the Act, 1962 is intended to achieve the above object. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, the contention of the petitioners that the alignment becomes final on the issue of notification under Sec.3(1) of the Act is untenable. The alignment becomes final when the notification under Sec.6(1) of the Act is issued by the Central Government, after disposing the objections against the notification under Sec.3(1) of the said Act. It is also stated that, Exts.P5 and P6 objections filed by the petitioners were considered properly and correctly, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and conducting the enquiry as contemplated under Sec.5(2) of the Act. 7. That apart, it is stated, the lands in question are absolutely necessary for laying pipelines and no alternative land has been acquired for the same purpose. 7. That apart, it is stated, the lands in question are absolutely necessary for laying pipelines and no alternative land has been acquired for the same purpose. It is further stated that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the ambit of Sec.7(1) of the Act, and therefore, objections raised are not tenable in law. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P6 objections were disallowed, and proposals were forwarded to the Central Government for acquiring the right of user in lands in question, among other lands. It was thereupon that Central Government acquired the right of user in land by issuing Ext.P10 notification. It is also contended that the entire actions initiated by the respondents are in accordance with law, and the petitioners have not made out any grounds warranting interference of this Court by exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. W.P.(C) No.26419 of 2013 is filed by another son of the 1st petitioner in the earlier writ petition. Contentions raised are similar in nature, and therefore, I do not propose to recite the contentions raised in an elaborate manner. The property of the petitioner therein is situate in Survey No.792/1 and is having an extent of 1.97 acres. 9. There is no separate counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned ASGI and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 11. The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted in Exts.P3 and P10 notifications issued in W.P.(C) No.19148 of 2013, which are akin to Exts.P3 and P6 in the other writ petition. 12. In my considered opinion, the point raised by the petitioners is that even though objections were filed and petitioners were heard, no copy of the order was served on the petitioners. From a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petitions, the objection raised by the petitioners seems to be that as per Exts.P1 and P2, the alignment was fixed and therefore, there was no necessity for issuing Ext.P3 including the property of the petitioners. However, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent has invited my attention to Sec.5 of the Act, wherein a hearing is provided in accordance with the objection submitted. However, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent has invited my attention to Sec.5 of the Act, wherein a hearing is provided in accordance with the objection submitted. Therefore, if there are any objectionable aspects, the alignment can be changed at that point of time. It is also the contention of the respondents that till such time declaration is made under Sec.6 of the Act, the alignment cannot be said to be finalized. It was after the hearing of the objections only, Sec.6 declaration is made, and even though alignment was proposed as per Exts.P1 and P2, there were objections consequent to which, Ext.P3 notification was issued under Sec.3 of the Act, which included the property of the petitioners. 13. That apart, there is no case for the petitioners that there is any malafides on the part of the respondents in issuing Ext.P3 notification and acquiring the user right in the property of the petitioners to extent notified. 14. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3 notification or Sec.6 declaration. However, on a perusal of Ext.P5 objection in W.P.(C) No.19148 of 2013, I find that even in a short form, petitioners have raised a claim of exemption as provided under Sec.7 of the Act, 1962. Section 7 of the Act read thus: "7. 14. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3 notification or Sec.6 declaration. However, on a perusal of Ext.P5 objection in W.P.(C) No.19148 of 2013, I find that even in a short form, petitioners have raised a claim of exemption as provided under Sec.7 of the Act, 1962. Section 7 of the Act read thus: "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 servant and workmen to enter upon the land and lay pipelines or to do any other act necessary for 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; (ia) for laying pipelines for the transport of petroleum, it shall be lawful for any person authorized by the Central Government or such State Government or Corporation to use such land for laying pipelines for transporting any mineral and where the right of user in any land has so vested for laying pipelines for transporting any mineral, it shall be lawful for such person to use such land for laying pipelines for transporting petroleum or any other mineral; and (ii) such land shall be used only for laying the pipelines and for maintaining, examining, repairing, altering or removing any such pipelines or for doing any other act necessary for any of the aforesaid purposes or for the utilization of such pipelines. (2) If any dispute arises with regard to any matter referred to in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of the proviso to Clause (i) of sub-section (1), the dispute shall be referred to the competent authority whose decision thereon shall be final." 15. (2) If any dispute arises with regard to any matter referred to in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of the proviso to Clause (i) of sub-section (1), the dispute shall be referred to the competent authority whose decision thereon shall be final." 15. On a reading of the said provisions, it is categoric and clear, only after vesting the right in the Central Government, by issuing Sec.6 declaration, it is vested with powers to enter into the property and lay pipelines or do any other act for the laying of pipelines. However, there is a prohibition created from laying any pipeline in respect of the lands notified under Sec.3, which is used for residential purposes, and if a contention is raised with respect to the stipulations contained under Sec.7, sub-section (2) of Sec.7 mandates that such a dispute shall be referred to the competent authority, whose decision thereon shall be final. 16. I had occasion to consider a similar question in W.P. (C) No.39054 of 2015, and as per the judgment dated 22.11.2016, a direction was issued to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and then pass orders within a time frame fixed. I am inclined to grant the same relief to the petitioners herein also, since the petitioners have a case that even though they were heard, no copy of the orders were served on them. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to get a similar treatment. 17. Therefore, there will be a direction accordingly to the competent among the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and thereafter an inspection shall be conducted with respect to the claims raised by the petitioners on account of Sec.7 of Act, 1962, and pass orders thereon. Copies of the said orders shall be communicated to the petitioners by registered post, and if any adverse orders are passed, same shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the petitioners. In order to enable the respondents to proceed with the matter, petitioners are directed to appear before the 3rd respondent on 10.04.2017. A decision shall be taken finally within a month from the said date, and comply with the directions specified above. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.