🚨 IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur: The Unresolved Encroachment Crisis in Mirzapur

The ongoing dispute in Mirzapur regarding unauthorised construction near an Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) pipeline at chainage 390.555 km highlights a critical public safety failure. The IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur has become a pressing concern. Despite repeated official complaints spanning over a year, the issue remains unresolved. This is due to a bureaucratic deadlock between the local Revenue Department and IOCL. The situation severely jeopardises safety in an area designated as a Right-of-User (R.O.U.) zone.

---

The Core Issue: Violation of the R.O.U.

The heart of the matter is the violation of the 60-foot Right-of-User (R.O.U.) acquired under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (PMP) Act, 1962. This R.O.U. is a safety corridor.In this corridor, no one may engage in construction, excavation, or boring activities. These restrictions prevent damage to the underground pipeline. This pipeline carries flammable products.

The complainant, Anil Kumar Maurya, has consistently pointed out the enforcement’s hypocrisy. The IOCL Staff stopped him from installing a simple hand pump. However, unauthorised construction by others continues in the same danger zone.

---

The Bureaucratic Deadlock: Revenue vs. IOCL (IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur)

Multiple grievance registrations (including IGRS No. 6000024037139, 60000250018601, and GOVUP/E/2025/0109730) have resulted only in repeated, non-substantive reports, creating a frustrating “parrot reply” loop.

Authority’s Stance	Outcome
Tehsil Sadar (Revenue Department)	Repeatedly closed the case. They stated they cannot proceed without the physical presence of IOCL staff. The matter concerns the IOCL pipeline.
IOCL (Eastern Region Pipelines)	They stated that a team was constituted under the Naib Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur. They have written to the state government for action.

This stalemate means that IOCL refers the case to the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar then refers the case back to IOCL. This cycle results in zero on-the-ground action against the illegal construction. (IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur)

---

Call for Central Intervention by MoPNG (IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur)

The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) has received the current grievance (MPANG/E/2025/0016366). They have assigned it to Chief Manager at IOCL. Immediate central intervention is critical to enforce pipeline safety.

The primary actions requested from the MoPNG, as the controlling Ministry for IOCL, are:

1. Direct IOCL Coordination: Instruct the Operations Manager, IOCL Eastern Region Pipelines, Prayagraj to actively coordinate with the local Revenue Department. The Naib Tehsildar Sadar will help decisively break the procedural deadlock.
2. Mandatory Joint Inspection: Conduct a joint site inspection immediately and properly demarcate the 60-foot R.O.U.
3. Legal Enforcement: Facilitate enforcing the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act, 1962/2011. “Take appropriate legal action against all unauthorised encroachments.”

The failure to resolve this inter-departmental dispute prolongs a serious public safety hazard. It also undermines the integrity of the PMP Act. (IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur)

You are highlighting a crucial issue about who is responsible in this case. The Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sadar’s office is primarily responsible for the lack of progress. It is not the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) or Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL).

You assert that the local administration has completed all necessary formalities to act. The SDM/Tehsil Sadar insists continuously on the physical presence of IOCL staff before acting. This is a “trick of procrastination”.

Here is an analysis and reframing of the argument to emphasize the failure of the local Revenue Department (SDM/Tehsil Sadar):

---

🛑 Failure of Local Administration: The SDM’s Lack of Action

Your claim questions the basic assumption. The Tehsil Sadar office uses this premise to close your grievances. They believe they cannot proceed without the presence of IOCL staff.

1. IOCL’s Formalities were Completed

You argue that IOCL has already fulfilled its required formalities, including:

• Referral to State Government: IOCL confirmed they have written to the state government’s concerned office for appropriate action.
• Team Constitution:IOCL announced that they formed a team chaired by the Naib Tehsildar Sadar Mirzapur to resolve the issue. Local revenue authorities have formally empowered themselves to act. (IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur)

2. The SDM/Tehsildar’s Responsibility

The documents strongly support the argument that the office of the sub-divisional magistrate, Sadar, requires an accent.

• Authority to Act: The local administration is led by the Naib Tehsildar. They have taken on the case. The encroachment violates the Right-of-User (R.O.U.). The Revenue Department is the key agency responsible for coordinating the land demarcation. We need to demarcate to establish the extent of the violation.
• If the physical presence of IOCL staff was essential, the SDM/Tehsil Sadar’s office had a duty. This duty was to contact the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. They needed to arrange a joint inspection date.The failure to initiate this contact after repeated grievances demonstrates a clear dereliction of duty and a strategy of avoidance.

3. The Pattern of Procrastination

The history of reports confirms your suspicion of procrastination:

• Repeated, Identical Reports: The Revenue Department submitted the reports on December 11, 2024, February 10, 2025, and October 16, 2025. All reports share identical content. They say that they cannot take action because IOCL staff is absent. This repeated non-substantive response is exactly what you termed the “parrot reply”.
• Blaming the Other Party: IOCL consistently closes the case and takes on the burden of attendance. This action by the SDM/Tehsil Sadar’s office effectively shifts the blame and responsibility for a local safety issue.

The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) has successfully lodged your current grievance (MPANG/E/2025/0016366). An IOCL Chief Manager will handle it. This is still a valuable step. MoPNG has the authority to compel their PSU (IOCL) to actively coordinate. They can push the local authorities.

To reinforce your point, emphasise that the SDM’s office must begin coordinating the joint inspection. Do not wait for IOCL to spontaneously appear.

Based on the documents provided, I can offer the available contact and identification details for the applicant Anil Kumar Maurya. I can also provide the details for the concerned official organizations, including Indian Oil Corporation Limited and the government officials.

While direct “web links” for a specific grievance are not present, here are the contact identifiers and email addresses provided in the documents:

🔗 Contact Details of the Applicant and Concerned Parties

---

1. Applicant: Anil Kumar Maurya (IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur)

Detail	Information	Source
Mobile Number	9125142451	1111111111111111111111111
Email Address	anilkumarmaurya9125142451@gmail.com	2222222222222222222222222

---

2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL)

Detail	Information	Source
Corporate CIN	L23201MH1959GO1011388	3333333333333333333333333
IOCL Helpline	18003456105	4
Police (Emergency)	112	5
Local IOCL Contact Number	7880540222 (for Chainage-390.555 km)	6
Local Office Phone	+91 8528616079	7777777777777777777777777
Official Email (Assigned Officer)	joshiab[at]indianoil[dot]in

---

3. Uttar Pradesh Government Officials (Grievance System) (IOCL Pipeline Threat in Mirzapur)

Detail	Information	Source
Grievance Officer Name	Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary)
Officer Email	arvind.12574[at]gov[dot]in
Officer Contact Number	05222226350

---

Would you like me to look up the official website for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited? Should I use these details to find the Uttar Pradesh Grievance Portal?

reptehsildar