ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent in not conducting Panchanama to the land of the petitioner for laying gas pipeline vide proceedings No. C.A./A.P/Ananthapuramu/Bukkarayasamudram/Podaralla/01/2020 dated 10.06.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land. 2. The petitioner is the owner of land situated in Sy. No. 71 & 73 to an extent of Ac. 0.41 cents and Ac. 1.20 cents situated in Vadiyampeta Village, Bukkarayasamudram Mandal, Ananthapuram District. The 1st respondent issued notification No. 60 under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Act, 1962 (for short, 'the PMP Act, 1962') and the petitioner's father Lakshmaiah submitted his objections dated 12.02.2020 to the Competent authority. Thereafter, it appears the Competent authority rejected the objections and passed an order under Section 5(2) of the PMP Act, 1962 vide proceedings No. C.A./A.P/Ananthapuramu/Bukkarayasamudram/Podaralla/01/2020 dated 10.06.2020 and informed that due compensation as specified under Section 10 of the PMP Act, 1962 will be granted to those owners in whose subsoil the gas pipeline will be laid. It appears thereafter notification No. 2172 was issued by the Central Government under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 on 28.07.2020. Thereafter, a notice in C.A./A.P/Ananthapuramu/Bukkarayasamudram/Podaralla/2020 dated 26.09.2020 was issued under Section 10 r/w Rule 4 of the Petroleum & Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules, 1963') by the Competent authority informing to the owners that the staff of the respondent authorities will visit the lands for conducting Panchanama and the owners can submit the claims for compensation. At that juncture, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 10.06.2020 to the Competent authority and 2nd respondent challenging the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Competent authority in terms of Section 5(2) of the PMP Act, 1962. In the notice the petitioner called upon the respondents to stop the digging work and vacate the schedule property. The Competent authority issued a reply dated 24.10.2020 stating that the project was approved by the Ministry of Petroleum and Minerals of India and public interest is involved in the project and after laying the pipeline the land will be again restored to the petitioner for using the same for agricultural purpose. The Competent authority issued a reply dated 24.10.2020 stating that the project was approved by the Ministry of Petroleum and Minerals of India and public interest is involved in the project and after laying the pipeline the land will be again restored to the petitioner for using the same for agricultural purpose. It was also mentioned that the petitioner can approach the District Court if compensation is not acceptable to him. Hence, the instant writ petition. 3. Respondent filed counter and opposed the petition inter alia contending that after publication of notification, a notice dated 02.01.2020 under Section 3(1) was issued to the father-cum-land owner on 04.02.2020 by the Competent authority calling for objections within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice, to which he submitted his objections dated 12.02.2020. Thereafter, another notice dated 02.05.2020 was issued by the Competent authority directing the owners to participate in the enquiry to be held on 08.05.2020. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the enquiry and the Competent authority passed an order under Section 5(2) of the PMP Act, 1962 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner, stating that there was no possibility of changing the alignment of the pipeline. Thereafter, the Central Government issued notification under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 dated 28.07.2020. The notice under Section 6(1) was also served on the owners of the respective properties. Thereafter, a notice dated 26.09.2020 was served by the Competent authority stating that Panchanama will be conducted under Rule 4(A) of the Rules and requested the owners to co-operate with the team of officers. The land owners were informed that prior notice will be issued to them to enable them to participate in the Panchanama proceedings at the notified land. In the counter, it is specifically stated that Panchanama proceedings were commenced in Anantapuram District and teams are progressing towards Bukkarayasamudram Mandal and Panchanama notice will be served in advance to inform the farmers about arrival of teams to measure the land and compensation will be paid as per the details gathered during the course of Panchanama. In case the farmer/owner is not satisfied with the compensation, they can approach the District Court seeking additional compensation. In case the farmer/owner is not satisfied with the compensation, they can approach the District Court seeking additional compensation. It is further stated in the counter that the allegation of the petitioner that without conducting any Panchnama the respondents started digging of the petitioner's land for laying of the gas pipeline is false and incorrect in view of the fact that the trenching of the land has not yet started in the Mandal much less in the village of the petitioner. The respondent thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition as a premature one. 4. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri G. Ram Gopal, Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 6. Point: As can be seen from the respective pleadings, an extraordinary Gazette notification No. 60(E) dated 02.01.2020 was issued by the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, 1962 and a notice relating to the said notification was served on K. Lakshmaiah, father of the petitioner on 04.02.2020. As can be seen from the copy of the reply-cum-objections dated 12.02.2020, which is filed along with material papers, it is evident that the said K. Laksmaiah submitted his objections to Competent Authority. Then the proceedings in No. C.A./A.P/Ananthapuramu/ Bukkarayasamudram/Podaralla/01/2020 dated 10.06.2020 shows that the Competent authority rejected the objections of the petitioner and his father and passed an order under Section 5(2) of the PMP Act, 1962 and informed them that due compensation will be paid under Section 10 of the PMP Act, 1962. Thereafter, a Gazette notification No. 2172 dated 28.07.2020 was issued by the Central Government under Section 6(1) of the Act. In that view, it can be said that the respondent authorities followed due procedure for acquiring the right to user of the sub-soil of the petitioner's land and with the publication of Section 6(1) notification, the right to user in the land has vested with the respondents in terms of Section 6(2) of the Act. 7. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued notice dated 26.09.2020 to the petitioner stating that the staff of the Corporation will visit to conduct survey in terms of 4(A) of the Rules and the petitioner and other owners can attend and assist them in assessing the compensation as well as damages, if any. 7. Thereafter, the respondent authorities issued notice dated 26.09.2020 to the petitioner stating that the staff of the Corporation will visit to conduct survey in terms of 4(A) of the Rules and the petitioner and other owners can attend and assist them in assessing the compensation as well as damages, if any. At that juncture, the petitioner got issued legal notice dated 10.10.2020 challenging the order dated 10.06.2020 passed by the Competent authority under Section 5(2) of the Act. His main objection appears to be that he is using the subject land as garden land for cultivating Tomato, Papaya, Groundnut, Paddy, flowers etc by installing three electric bores and by spending huge amount. If pipelines were to be laid, he will suffer a lot and further there will be security problem in view of the fact that schools and colleges are in and around his property. These objections were already negatived in the order dated 10.06.2020 obviously for the reason that none of the objections raised by the petitioner comes under the exceptions mentioned in Section 7 of the PMP Act, 1962. Now, the writ petition is filed on another ground as if the respondents are digging the trenches in the petitioner's land without conducting Panchanama and assessing the compensation. However, this contention does not hold water in view of the counter averments wherein it is specifically stated by the respondents that the teams are proceeding for conducting Panchanama in Bukkarayasamudram Mandal of Ananthapuram District and Panchanama notice will be served in advance to inform the farmers and owners to attend the Panchanama and to assist the staff of the respondents to assess the compensation as well as the extent of the damages. It is further clearly stated in Paragraph No. 9 of the counter that trenching of the land has not started in Mandal much less in the village of the petitioner. In that view, as rightly pointed by the respondents, the present writ petition is a premature one. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with an observation that the respondent authorities shall issue an advance notice to the petitioner before conducting Panchanama to enable him to attend the Panchanama proceedings and assist the staff to assess the compensation and the extent of damages. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.