JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Challenging the action of the Respondents in issuing Notification S.O. 341(E), dated 09.01.2019, and Notification S.O.1800(E), dated 20.05.2019, under Section 3 (1) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, the above four Writ Petitions are filed. 2. Writ Petition No. 11533 of 2019 is filed challenging the Notification, dated 09.01.2019, in S.O. 341(E); while Writ Petition Nos. 7022, 8209 and 9032 of 2019 are filed challenging the Notification S.O. 1800(E), dated 20.05.2019; issued by 1st Respondent, under Section 3 (1) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 [here-in-after referred to as ‘PMP Act’]. By its Order, dated 05.12.2019, the learned Single Judge dismissed all the Writ Petitions with some observations, which led to filing of the present Writ Appeals against the said Common Order. 3. In order to appreciate the issue involved, it would be just and proper to narrate the facts in issue: i. The Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions are owners of different extents of agricultural land situated in Survey Nos. 348/4, 348/1, 87-A-2, 89-3B, 87-A-1, 89-3A, 336-A2-4, 336/5, 332/2, 336/A2, 336-A2-2B, 336-A2-4, 336-A2-2A, 336-A2-3, 87-A-2, 89-3B, 87-A-1, 89-3A, 305/1A2 and 337/5 of Taderu Village, Bheemavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ii. A Notification, dated 13.07.2018, came to be issued by the 1st Respondent, proposing to lay gas pipelines through various villages in West Godavari District, for transportation of Natural Gas from ONGC Bantumilli to Ullamparru TOP. iii. The grievance of the petitioners is that after issuance of Preliminary Notification, dated 13.07.2018, the Central Government finalized and issued a Notification under Section 6(1) of the PMP Act, on 07.05.2019, stating that the lands under Notification, dated 13.07.2018, shall be acquired and they shall vest with M/s. GAIL India. In the said Notification, neither the main survey numbers nor the sub-division numbers are mentioned. However, within 12 days thereafter, i.e., on 20.05.2019, the 1st Respondent issued another Notification, dated 20.05.2019, under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, notifying certain survey numbers, in which the Petitioners’ lands formed part, which according to them is illegal and contrary to law. iv. In the said Notification, neither the main survey numbers nor the sub-division numbers are mentioned. However, within 12 days thereafter, i.e., on 20.05.2019, the 1st Respondent issued another Notification, dated 20.05.2019, under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, notifying certain survey numbers, in which the Petitioners’ lands formed part, which according to them is illegal and contrary to law. iv. In other words, the grievance of the Petitioners in W.P. No. 9032 of 2019 [W.A. No. 26/2021], W.P. No. 7022 of 2019 [W.A. No. 28/2021], W.P. No. 8209 of 2019 [W.A. No. 39/2021] and W.P. No. 11533 of 2019 [W.A. No. 29/2021] is that, though, the Petitioners’ lands were not notified, but, the 1st Respondent issued a declaration on 07.05.2019, including the lands in 34 survey numbers out of 38 survey numbers. Subsequently, the 1st Respondent issued another Notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, on 09.01.2019, replacing the survey numbers of the Petitioners in place of survey numbers, which were omitted from the declaration. 4. Various legal issues came to be raised, namely, (a) that, once a declaration is issued and the lands are entrusted to the custody of M/s.GAIL India, for its project, the necessity of acquisition of Right of User mentioned under Section 3(1) Notification is complete and that it is not open to the Central Government to issue another notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act, for the very same purpose and there is no necessity to acquire Right of User by changing the alignment in the absence of any new material; (b) that, without application of mind and in a mechanical manner second Notification came to be issued within 12 days from the date of Section 6 declaration; (c) that no material has been placed by 2nd and 3rd Respondents to substantiate their version that reports were sent to the Central Government for change of alignment after the declaration. 5. (i) Sri. V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Report dated 12.03.2019 could not be relied upon for a change in the alignment, on the ground that the fish tank owners are not willing to cooperate for laying of pipeline through open cut method, within a short period of 3 to 4 months. 5. (i) Sri. V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Report dated 12.03.2019 could not be relied upon for a change in the alignment, on the ground that the fish tank owners are not willing to cooperate for laying of pipeline through open cut method, within a short period of 3 to 4 months. According to him, the objection raised by the fish tank owners was for a short period and the said period was over by the time of issuance of impugned notification dated 20/05/2019. It is urged that the Respondents are conscious of the fact that after notification, it will take some more time to pass a declaration, pay compensation and take physical possession of the lands. Hence, pleads, that there is no justification to say that the fish tank owners have objected to laying of the pipeline. (ii) It is further submitted that the earlier notification prescribes a straight alignment involving fewer pipes, but, the alignment which is now proposed, is not only long but involves heavy expenditure, which is admitted by the Respondents in their letter, dated 24.05.2019. In the end, the Counsel submits that the alignment has been changed with a view to protect the land of the relatives of 3rd Respondent, as their lands would get affected, under the Notification, dated 13.08.2019. He also relied upon certain judgments in support of his plea. 6. On the other hand, Sri. Kakara Venkata Rao, learned Counsel for 2nd & 3rd Respondents denies the allegations made and submits that an officer of the rank of the 3rd Respondent cannot prevail and have any say in acquisition of the lands by the 2nd Respondent. He further states in his counter that the objections raised now can also be raised by way of objections to the Notification as provided under Section 5 of the PMP Act. He further pleads that the Gas Authority of India Limited has proposed to lay a gas pipeline from ONGC Bantumilli to Ullamparru TOP, West Godavari District. For fixing the alignment of the said pipeline, M/s.Theodesh was awarded the contract of conducting a detailed survey and submission of a report, which was done. After completing all the formalities, Government of India issued the Declaration notifying that the ‘Right of User’ in the said lands for laying proposed pipeline has been acquired and the same vested with the Central Government / GAIL. After completing all the formalities, Government of India issued the Declaration notifying that the ‘Right of User’ in the said lands for laying proposed pipeline has been acquired and the same vested with the Central Government / GAIL. It is further stated that, when the execution of project was started, it was found that in some areas, the land fixed for proposing gas pipeline is covered with water bodies / tanks and major portion of the land was converted into fish ponds, because of which laying of pipeline was found to be a difficult task, from the technical point of view. On the advice of the experts, it was decided to shift the route of the pipeline so as to avoid laying of pipeline through fish tanks and water bodies. Having regard to the above, the survey agency, on the request of GAIL, reviewed its earlier report after making an in depth study, and suggested diversion of route of the pipeline, taking into consideration the technical issues, as pointed out by GAIL, namely, that crossing of cluster of fish ponds is not feasible through Horizontal Directional Drilling [HDD] due to non-availability of access / approach for placement of heavy length of pipes, rigs and its movements. It is stated that due to change in the route of gas pipeline involves lands, in which Right of User was not acquired under the earlier notification, a fresh acquisition proceedings came to be initiated by issuing another notification under Section 3 (1). It is further stated in the counter that the objectors have a right to raise objection within 21 days from the date of notification and the competent authority shall hear all such objections after giving the objector an opportunity of hearing. It is further stated that, as per the scheme of the Act, a declaration under Section 6 can be issued, where no objections under subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Act are made to the competent authority, within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objections under subsection (2) of section 5. It is further stated that, as per the scheme of the Act, a declaration under Section 6 can be issued, where no objections under subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Act are made to the competent authority, within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objections under subsection (2) of section 5. Section 6 further contemplates that, where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 5 have been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objections under sub-section (2) of section 5, the said authority shall, as soon as may be, either make a report in respect of the land described in the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3, or make different reports to the Central Government containing his recommendations on the objections raised, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. Upon receipt of such report, the Central Government shall, if satisfied, that such land is required for laying a pipeline, declare by notification in the Official Gazette, that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipeline shall be acquired. Having regard to the above, it is submitted that, there was every justification for the authorities to issue notifications under Section 3 and a declaration under Section 6 of the PMP Act. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even assuming for the sake of argument, that there are violations under the provisions of the Act, directions may be given to Respondents to pay compensation in terms of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short Act 2013), taking the market value existing as on the date of filing of Writ Petition. 8. It is now stated across the Bar that objections were submitted to the notices issued; the same were sent to Union of India, and, thereafter, on 09.10.2020, declaration under Section 6(1) came to be issued. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would contend that, the total disputed area is about 800 meters, scattered over a total length of two kilometers, while the total length of pipeline is about 1308 kilometers. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would contend that, the total disputed area is about 800 meters, scattered over a total length of two kilometers, while the total length of pipeline is about 1308 kilometers. He further submits that laying of pipeline is over and this being a branch of the main pipeline, the entire work is stalled due to the operation of stay, in the writ petitions. 9. It is to be noted here that, the pipeline is sought to be laid connecting ONGC Bantumilli to Ullamparru TOP. The present pipeline is an offshoot (branch) of the main pipeline. The pipeline which could not be laid due to pendency of the litigation, is about 800 meters, scattered over a length of two kilometers, while the total length of the off shoot pipeline (branch) is about 38.2 kilometers. It is further stated across the Bar that, laying and welding of the entire pipeline except the disputed area is complete. 10. The learned Counsel for the Appellants Sri. V.V. Satish, raised various issues, namely, (a) issuance of more than one Section 3(1) declaration; (b) non mentioning of survey numbers in the first declaration, and (c) change in alignment of the pipeline, so as to benefit one Tata Rao. But the material on record would show that survey for fixing the alignment of the pipeline was given to M/s.Theodesh, who after conducting a detailed survey submitted a report to Union of India. The averments in the counter further show that the technical wing of the GAIL found it difficult to lay pipeline through water bodies, as crossing of cluster of fish ponds being not feasible through Horizontal Directional Drilling [HDD], due to non-availability of access / approach for placement of heavy length pipes, rigs and its movements, which made them to realign the route of the pipeline. This being a technical issue and in the absence of any positive material to show that this was done to benefit a particular individual, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the alignment was changed to favour a third person cannot be accepted. 11. Insofar as the declarations under Section 3(1) are concerned, it is not doubt true that there are more than one declaration under Section 3(1), but, the reason for such declaration finds support from the material on record. 11. Insofar as the declarations under Section 3(1) are concerned, it is not doubt true that there are more than one declaration under Section 3(1), but, the reason for such declaration finds support from the material on record. The initial declaration relates to the original route of the pipeline, but in view of the change in alignment, another notification came to be issued. Therefore, in the given situation, it is difficult to find fault with authorities in issuing more than one declaration. 12. Above all, it is to be noted here that, it is a sub-terrain pipeline running through the lands of the Appellants. The same does not prevent the owners from raising certain types of crops. It is no doubt true that digging or excavation is not permitted in the said place, but, the land can be put to use in some form or the other. Further as stated earlier, the entire project is complete except a stretch of 800 meters, which is held up due to pendency of the proceedings before the court. This being a project serving the needs of the public in general, a different approach is required than what is contemplated under the provisions of other enactments of this nature. 13. It is no doubt true that writ jurisdiction can be invoked where there is violation of any of the provisions of the Act, but, at the same time, it is also to be noticed that the jurisdiction to be exercised, by this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary in nature and the discretion to be exercised may vary when larger public interest is involved. 14. The issue identical to the case in hand came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 1 . It was also a case where out of 131 kilometers of land, stretch of about 125 kilometers of land was acquired and the balance 6 kilometers was under dispute. It was also brought to the notice of the court by the respondents therein i.e., Union of India, that pre-construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch and the bridge work is either in progress or has already been completed. It was also brought to the notice of the court by the respondents therein i.e., Union of India, that pre-construction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch and the bridge work is either in progress or has already been completed. After obtaining necessary instructions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners therein, submitted that his clients would be satisfied if they were granted compensation by awarding the current rate for acquisition of land. 15. Having regard to the above, and as no mala fides are alleged against the respondents in the acquisition proceedings, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said case, held that, larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the notification under Section 20-A is quashed and the public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project. The court deemed it appropriate to balance the right of the Appellants on the one hand, and the larger public purpose on the other, by compensating the appellants for the right they have been deprived of. 16. In Savitri Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21 the Apex Court held as under: “Thus, we have a scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal. On the other hand, we have a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created. Faced with this situation, the High Court going by the spirit behind the judgment of this Court in Bondu Ramaswamy and Others (supra) came out with the solution which is equitable to both sides. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively.” 17. Hence, in a given fact situation, the court can award compensation to the aggrieved persons in spite of their being violations [even assuming it to be so], where larger public purpose is involved. As submitted, even if the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is accepted in toto, at the most a fresh notification is required to be issued; call for objections and, thereafter, acquire lands after paying compensation, as determined by the concerned authority. It is clear from the judgments referred to above that while balancing larger public purpose and the rights of the appellants, a balance has to be struck by suitably compensating the aggrieved persons. 18. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge, which are as under: “14. In this case, the fact remains that the execution of the Project started and several crores of rupees were already invested by the respondents and the project is to supply gas to various Industrial and Domestic Consumers. Hence, the parameters applied by the Apex Court in the above cited ruling can be seen as existing in the case on hand also. Apart from that, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioners still have an opportunity of raising their objections with regard to the notification. The grievance of the petitioners’ counsel that 21 days have elapsed from the notification and hence, their objections may not be received by the respondents, can be redressed by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections with a further period of 21 days from the date of the order without reference to the time limit of 21 days, as provided for under Section 5(1) of the Act and further more, considering that the draft notification did not contain plan, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners by fixing it with reference to the date of acquisition of their lands if it is so proposed by the respondents after hearing the objections raised by the petitioners.” 19. Referring to the above observations, Sri. Kakara Venkat Rao, learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that some of the Appellants submitted their objections, which were sent to the Central Government and, thereafter, a declaration under Section 6(1) was issued on 09.10.2020. Referring to the above observations, Sri. Kakara Venkat Rao, learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that some of the Appellants submitted their objections, which were sent to the Central Government and, thereafter, a declaration under Section 6(1) was issued on 09.10.2020. He further submits that, if no explanation is submitted till date, by any of the Appellants, they may be given a further opportunity to submit their explanation, as provided under Section 5(1) of the Act. 20. Accordingly, we dispose off the writ petition giving three more weeks time from today to the writ petitioners to raise objections, if not already made before the concerned authority, who shall consider the same and in case found entitled for payment of compensation, shall pay the same to all the writ petitioners in terms of the provisions of Act 2013, taking the market value of the land prevailing as on the date of filing of Writ Petitions before this Court. No order as to costs. 21. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are closed.