JUDGMENT : M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order of this Court made in W.M.P. (MD) No. 6169 of 2020 in W.P. No. 6780 of 2010 dated 17.06.2020. 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant herein and aggrieved by the negativing of the interim prayer for ad-interim order in W.M.P. (MD) No. 6169 of 2020 made in W.P. (MD) No. 6780 of 2020, vide impugned order dated 17.06.2020, he came forward to file this Writ Appeal. 2. Mr. G. Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that the appellant/writ petitioner had purchased the land admeasuring an extent of 16.69 acres in Valantharavai village, Ramanathapuram Taluk and District, for establishing a private power generation plant of 52.8 M.W. by using Natural Gas fully supplied by the GAIL (India) Limited and the energy generated is being supplied to Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) grid. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent has served a notice dated 23.03.2020, stating among things that part of the lands belonging to the appellant/company in Survey Nos. 203/4B1C, 203/4B1B, 203/B1A, 203/2B1, 203/3B and 203/2B2, Valantharavai village, admeasuring an extent of 8415 sq. meters out of 16.69 acres has been taken by the virtue of declaration under Section 6(1) of Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (in short P & MP Act). 4. The primordial submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the mandates of Section 3(1) of the said Act have not been complied with and that apart, the said lands have been developed as a Green Belt in terms of the consent given by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and further pointed out, once the pipeline is laid, no trees can be planted on the site, since it affects the Green cover portion and the appellant/company may also liable to pay tax at the hands of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as well as other entities. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant company has clearly established a prima facie case for grant of interim orders. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant company has clearly established a prima facie case for grant of interim orders. However, the learned Single Judge without taking note of factual circumstances and the legal position, has erroneously declined to grant interim orders and prays for appropriate orders. 5. This Court also heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. 6. Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. The respondents 3 and 4 had filed the common counter affidavit and in paragraph No. 9, they would aver that the notification under Section 3(1) of P & MP Act expresses the intention of the Government of India acquiring right of user in the lands and it was sent to the writ petitioner vide office intimation, dated 01.09.2017 and the same has been returned with the endorsement “Refused to Receive” by the concerned Village Administrative Officer on 16.11.2017 and that apart, by the way of wide publicity, the details of the notification under Section 3(1) of the P & MP Act was also published in National and Vernacular dailies dated 12.10.2018, for further information of the land owners/interested persons over the said lands. 7. In paragraph No. 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondents 3 and 4 took a stand that the underground pipeline laying works have been completed and the land above said pipeline has been restored to the original condition and as such, the interim relief sought for by the petitioner become infructuous. 8. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant strongly refused and denied the said averments and this Court is of the considered view that the grounds urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant can be adjudicated only at the time of final disposal of the writ petition, it prima facie appears that the statutory authority has exercised the statutory function and the alleged infraction can be found out only at the time of going through the records, which can be done at the time of final hearing of this Writ Appeal. 9. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the said aspects and rightly declined the prayer for interim orders sought by the appellant. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 17.06.2020. 9. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the said aspects and rightly declined the prayer for interim orders sought by the appellant. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 17.06.2020. It is also made clear that the observations made in the impugned order, which is the subject matter of this Writ Appeal, or in this judgment, did not go into the merits or otherwise of the claim/defense projected by both parties. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner prays for early hearing and disposal of the Writ Petition. Therefore, Registry is directed to accord priority and list the writ petition for final disposal on 16.09.2020. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.