1. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of lands situated in various survey numbers of Yamnampet village and that the adjoining villages of Pocharam, Yamnampet and Rampally have evolved into residential localities over the past several decades. This residential character is not of recent origin but was statutorily recognised as far back as 1988 under the Master Plan Notification, through which the lands in the said villages were earmarked and converted for residential purposes. It is asserted that an ancient village cart track known as Bandla Baata has historically existed in the region, serving as the primary connecting pathway between Pocharam, Yamnampet and Rampally and the said Bandla Baata has been in continuous use by villagers, landowners and neighbouring landholders for generations and that it constitutes a customary and legally protected pathway under Sections 24 and 65 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. According to petitioner, this historical pathway forms part of the public pathways that must remain unobstructed and accessible for movement, and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no authority to interfere with such rights.

               1.1. Petitioner states that in 2002, Respondent No. 2 invoked the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 for acquiring a Right of User (ROU) to an extent of 18 metres width across the relevant survey numbers. Though the statutory acquisition was for an 18-metre corridor, pipeline was ultimately laid only in a width of approximately 4 metres. According to him, the remaining 14 metres were expressly left as a Right of Way for ingress and egress of repair vehicles, patrol teams and maintenance equipment. Petitioner further states that despite the ROU acquisition, title and possession of the land remained with the landowners and only a limited operational right was granted to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He argues that at the time of laying the pipeline, lands through which ROU was acquired were already notified as residential under the 1988 Master Plan and were part of developing residential layouts. Petitioner therefore, contends that laying the pipeline in such residential land was contrary to Section 7(1)(a) of the 1962 Act, which prohibits laying pipelines in land used for residential purposes, rendering the initial pipeline alignment itself contrary to the statutory mandate.

               1.2. Petitioner further contends that restrictions imposed under Section 9 of the 1962 Act are limited and specifi and do not include any prohibition against laying or developing a road. He points out that Section 9 only prohibits (i) construction of any building or permanent structure, (ii) excavation within the ROU, and (iii) planting of trees. A road is neither a building nor a permanent structure nor an excavation, therefore, does not fall within any restricted category. Petitioner asserts that laying a road is an activity fully consistent with the limited nature of ROU acquisition because ROU does not extinguish ownership, possession or the landowner's easementary rights. According to him, landowner retains the fundamental right to use the surface of the land, including right of passage, right to maintain existing village pathways and right to continue utilising the land in all respects except those expressly restricted by Section 9.

               1.3. Petitioner further asserts that the remaining extent of 14 metres within ROU corridor is, in fact, part of public roads left out in residential layouts formed in Pocharam, Yamnampet and Rampally. Such roads were formed decades ago as layout roads and that, under Section 294 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, all layout roads automatically vest in the 4th Respondent Municipality once the layout is approved or once such roads are used for public purposes. He states that the pipeline is laid only along the northern or southern edge of the road (depending on the location) and that rest of the width continues to be used by residents as a pathway. Road-laying or strengthening by landowners or Municipality is well within their rights and that doing so by complying with the applicable safety guidelines does not disturb or endanger the pipeline. He therefore, states that Respondents 2 and 3 cannot obstruct or prevent the Municipality or landowners from laying or improving public roads within the layout area.

               1.4. Relying on various Regulations framed under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006, petitioner states that applicable safety norms, particularly those contained in Schedule 1-F and Schedule 1-A of the 2008 and 2016 Regulations, expressly contemplate development of roads and other essential public utilities in proximity to pipelines, subject to adherence to prescribed safety measures. Regulations 6.8.1.1, 6.8.2.1 and 6.8.3 specifically provide for maintenance of the Right of Way, easy accessibility for patrolling teams and visibility of markers. According to petitioner, the Regulations do not prohibit road-laying but instead recognize that the Right of Way must accommodate routine civil works and that roads and pipelines can co-exist safely. He emphasizes that pipelines are routinely laid parallel to public roads as per Schedule 1-A of the 2016 Regulations, thereby demonstrating that public roads and pipelines are not inherently incompatible.

               1.5. Petitioner states that before initiating any road-laying activity, he duly notified Respondent No. 3, the operational division responsible for pipeline maintenance, and clearly informed them that all the required safety measures would be complied with during and after the road work. However, Respondent No. 3 objected to the proposed road-laying through letters and communications, taking the stand that road-laying is a "permanent construction". It is contended that this objection is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory scheme under Section 9, because a road is not a permanent structure and does not interfere with the operational integrity of the pipeline. Respondent No. 3's objections reflect a misunderstanding or misapplication of the law. Petitioner also asserts that other gas companies, particularly HPCL, have obtained required municipal permissions for laying pipelines parallel to public roads and have paid necessary charges to local authorities. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot claim a special status beyond what is prescribed by law and are equally bound by municipal regulations. According to him, Regulation 9 of the 2016 Regulations requires gas pipeline operators to obtain all statutory clearances and comply with all local laws and therefore Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot obstruct municipal functions under the pretext of the ROU 1.6. Petitioner alleges that the objection letter dated 13.10.2021 issued by Respondent No. 3 directing the Municipality not to allow the road work has effectively prevented him from accessing his own land and enjoying the use of the public pathway. He contends that this action not only infringes his property rights but also amounts to violation of his right to livelihood and right to movement under Article 21 of the Constitution. He further submits that depriving a landowner of access to his own property without authority of law amounts to violation of Article 300-A. 1.7. Based on these submissions, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (1) a declaration that the obstruction caused by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the 1962 Act, (ii) directions to the Municipality to lay or permit laying of public roads vested in it, (iii) restoration and protection of the Bandla Baata pathway under Sections 24 and 65 of the 1317 Fasli Act, and (iv) a declaration that laying pipelines in residential land in violation of Section 7 of the 1962 Act is illegal and void. He therefore prays for intervention of this Court to remove all impediments created by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and to allow road-laying activity in accordance with law.

2. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit contending that Writ Petition is wholly misconceived, untenable in law, and proceeds on incorrect factual premises. They assert that the Right of User (ROU) in the subject land was acquired by the Central Government in 2002 under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 after following the statutory procedure, issuing notifications, conducting enquiry and paying compensation to the affected landowners. Landowners, including those from whom petitioner claims rights, received compensation without protest, and that ROU acquisition thereby attained finality almost two decades ago. It is emphasized that petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen or question settled matters at this belated stage.

               2.1. It is further contended that petitioner's allegation that pipeline was laid through "residential land" is factually incorrect and misleading. According to them, at the time of ROU acquisition and execution of pipeline works in 2002, the subject area consisted of open, vacant, barren fields with no residential development whatsoever. Petitioner is attempting to retrospectively reinterpret the land use status on the basis of later developments and thereby cast aspersions on a lawful and long-settled public infrastructure project. It is stated, the ROU acquired under the 1962 Act imposes statutory restrictions on the use of the land. The entire 18 metre strip vests limited but exclusive operational rights in the authorized pipeline entity and that the landowners' rights stand correspondingly restricted. They contend that any activity within the ROU area which obstructs, hampers or interferes with pipeline maintenance, operation, patrolling or emergency response is impermissible. Laying of a road, even if described as "non-permanent" by petitioner, constitutes a surface development that would impede safe access to the pipeline, compromise visibility, restrict excavation work and pose severe public safety hazards in the event of leakage or rupture.

               2.2. It is also stated, petitioner's reliance on Section 9 of the 1962 Act is erroneous. According to Respondents 2 and 3, Section 9 must be read in the context of the objective of the statute, namely ensuring pipeline safety and unimpeded access for maintenance. Section 9 prohibits all activities that may have the effect of hindering maintenance or creating risks, and that the statutory words "construction of any building, structure or excavation" encompass any activity which alters the surface of the ROU, including construction of roads. They argue that petitioner's interpretation of Section 9 as prohibiting only large permanent structures is overly narrow and contrary to the safety-driven purpose of the Act.

               2.3. Respondents 2 and 3 further contend that petitioner's attempt to treat 14 metre portion of ROU as a "public road" or as "layout roads vesting in the Municipality" is legally-misconceived. Vesting of layout roads under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 cannot override or supersede the rights vested in the Central Government and the authorized pipeline agency under a Central statute. The ROU, once acquired, places statutory limitations on the use of that strip of land, irrespective of subsequent municipal claims or landowner intentions. Neither petitioner nor the Municipality can claim any authority over the ROU in a manner inconsistent with the rights legally vested in Respondents 2 and 3.

               2.4. It is also contended that petitioner's reliance on the Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, particularly Sections 24 and 65 relating to Bandla Baata, is unsustainable. Once the Central Government acquires ROU under a special statute, any pre-existing easementary rights or local customary rights such as Bandla Baata become subordinate to the statutory rights acquired under the 1962 Act. They assert that petitioner cannot seek "restoration" of a pathway through land over which ROU rights have been statutorily acquired and exercised. It is also stated, petitioner has not produced any evidence showing that the proposed road-laying complies with the safety guidelines applicable to high-pressure petroleum pipelines. Petitioner merely assumed that the Regulations support his claim, whereas the safety requirements actually impose stringent restrictions on surface activities. Only the pipeline operator is competent to assess safety and that the operator has determined that road-laying within the ROU materially compromises public safety.

               2.5. Respondents 2 and 3 therefore, state that all objections raised by them, including in the letter dated 13.10.2021, are fully justified, lawful, and mandated by safety considerations. Petitioner's attempt to term their objection "arbitrary" is unfounded, as their actions are consistent with statutory duties and industry safety norms. They accordingly seek dismissal of the writ petition.

3. Respondent No. 4 filed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner never submitted any representation or request to the Municipality regarding laying of road prior to filing the Writ Petition. It asserts that petitioner's allegation of municipal inaction or refusal is therefore incorrect and unfounded. It is also stated, only those roads that are left in approved and registered layouts vest in the Municipality under Section 294 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. Vesting cannot be presumed merely because petitioner claims that certain portions of land were "left as roads" The Municipality states that petitioner has not produced any approved layout plans showing that the disputed 14 metre strip is a layout road that has vested in the local body.

               3.1. Respondent No. 4 further states that even if a road vests in the Municipality, it cannot undertake any development works such as laying, repairing or widening of the road unless prior administrative sanction, technical approval, budgetary allocation and a resolution of the municipal council are duly obtained. It asserts that municipal action is governed by mandatory statutory procedures which cannot be bypassed on the basis of unilateral requests or private claims. The Municipality also states that no complaint was ever received regarding obstruction of Bandla Baata or any public road, nor was any report submitted to it by petitioner or other landholders. It states that without a proper representation and documentation, it is not empowered to inspect or initiate any action. Respondent No. 4 concludes by stating that it will abide by the directions of this Court and will examine any representation submitted by petitioner, but it cannot undertake any work in the subject land without statutory compliance and without clarity on the safety issues raised by Respondents No. 2 and 3.

4. Heard Sri Unnam Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1, Smt. K. Jaya Sree, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3, Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.4, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of Respondents 5 and 6.

5. The material placed before this Court indicates that the principal grievance of petitioner pertains to his asserted right to lay or cause to be laid a public road over 14-metre portion of land forming part of the Right of User (ROU) acquired under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. The issue therefore, revolves around the legal effect of the ROU acquisition, extent of restrictions imposed upon landowners after such acquisition, and statutory and technical obligations governing underground petroleum pipelines. The statutory framework under the 1962 Act, together with the safety obligations of the authorized pipeline entity, is accordingly central to the adjudication of the present controversy.

6. It is not in dispute that ROU was acquired in 2002 by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the 1962 Act and that compensation was paid and accepted by the landowners from whom the land was taken. The acquisition was thus completed long before the present Writ Petition was instituted. Petitioner, who seeks to indirectly challenge or reopen issues pertaining to the nature of the land or the legality of the alignment at the time of acquisition, cannot be permitted to do so after a lapse of more than two decades. Such belated challenges are not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when the consequences of acquisition have long been acted upon and underground pipeline infrastructure has been laid and operationalized.

7. Petitioner's reliance on vesting of layout roads under Section 294 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, as well as the historical existence of Bandla Baata under Sections 24 and 65 of the 1317 Fasli Act, is misconceived in the present statutory context. Once ROU is acquired under the 1962 Act, the land continues to remain with the landowner only in a limited sense and subject to statutory restrictions. The operational rights vested in Respondents 2 and 3 under a Central legislation cannot be diluted or overridden by municipal laws or local customary rights. The 1962 Act, being a special enactment with an overriding purpose of protecting petroleum pipeline infrastructure, prevails over inconsistent local enactments to the extent of such inconsistency.

8. Section 9 of the 1962 Act expressly imposes restrictions on the landowner concerning activities that may adversely affect the safety or maintenance of the pipeline. The purpose of Section 9 is not confined merely to enumerating prohibited constructions but is intended to preserve the integrity of the ROU area so that the authorized entity can ensure safe, uninterrupted access for inspection, patrolling, repair and emergency response. Determining whether the proposed road-laying activity constitutes a structure or development which poses a safety hazard to high-pressure pipelines is fundamentally a technical question. Courts ordinarily refrain from substituting their own assessment for that of the statutorily-empowered technical agency unless the action complained of is manifestly arbitrary or perverse, which is not the case here.

9. Though petitioner has relied upon various Regulations framed by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) to contend that road-laying is permissible, those Regulations do not confer an absolute right on landowners or municipalities to undertake such activity. They merely prescribe safety obligations for activities that are otherwise permissible. These Regulations do not override the restrictions arising from ROU acquisition nor do they compel the pipeline authority to permit road-laying where, in its technical assessment, such activity would interfere with safe operation or impede mandatory maintenance access. It is well- settled that safety considerations in petroleum pipeline operations must receive primacy.

10. Respondents 2 and 3 have throughout taken a consistent and categorical stand that laying a road within the ROU would obstruct maintenance operations, hinder patrolling, and pose significant safety hazards. They further stated that the activity would limit their ability to excavate the soil promptly in the event of a pipeline emergency. This Court is unable to find any illegality, irrationality or mala fides in such a stand. On the contrary, their objections appear to be rooted firmly in public safety considerations and statutory obligations mandated under the 1962 Act.

11. As regards the plea of violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, it must be observed that constitutional rights cannot be invoked to negate or dilute statutory limitations that were accepted at the time of acquisition. Once compensation has been paid and the ROU has vested, the landowner remains bound by the restrictions flowing from the statute and cannot claim unrestricted use of the ROU area in the guise of fundamental or constitutional rights. Petitioner cannot therefore, rely upon Articles 21 or 300-A to seek a remedy contrary to the express terms of the 1962 Act.

12. The contentions of the 4th respondent Municipality also support the conclusion that petitioner has not followed necessary statutory procedures. The Municipality has specifically stated that no representation was made by the petitioner before approaching this Court and that any such request would require examination, administrative approval and budgetary sanction. The Municipality's stand further corroborates that Writ Petition suffers from procedural infirmities and premature invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction.

13. Having regard to the totality of the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the objections raised by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be termed arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of any statutory or constitutional mandate. Petitioner's grievance arises from his unilateral desire to utilise the 14-metre portion of the ROU as a road, contrary to express statutory restrictions and technical safety concerns. The impugned action of the respondents is firmly grounded in statutory authority, public safety considerations and operational requirements of the pipeline. In such circumstances, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is unwarranted.

14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that petitioner failed to make out any case for interference. The objections raised by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are supported by statutory provisions, technical considerations and safety imperatives governing petroleum pipelines. Petitioner has not demonstrated any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety in the respondents' actions, nor does he established any legal right to insist upon road-laying within the ROU area in contravention of the restrictions imposed under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. The reliefs sought are therefore, not liable to be granted.

15. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.