Gail (India) Ltd vs Muhammed Faris
2021 Latest Caselaw 20865 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
                          OP(C) NO. 577 OF 2021
            AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 559/2019 OF
                DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:

           GAIL (INDIA) LTD.
           REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KINFRA HI-TECH PARK,
           OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY.P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM
           DISTRICT,KOCHI-683 503

           BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI



RESPONDENT/S:

     1     MUHAMMED FARIS
           AGED 16 YEARS
           MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER JAMEELA, W/O. SAIDU, AGED 50
           YEARS, MOODOTHU HOUSE, THACHANPOIL POST, KEDAVOOR,
           THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 573

     2     THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
           GAIL (INDIA) LTD., KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT
           COLONY.P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM -683 503

           BY ADVS.
           O.D.SIVADAS
           SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA)
           LIMITED, SC,




     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 577 OF 2021
                                         2



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of October, 2021

The short question arising for consideration in this

original petition is regarding the power of the District

Judge to condone the delay in filing an application for

determination of compensation under Rule 5 of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of

User in Land) Rules, 1963 (for short 'PMP Rules'). Rule 5

of the PMP Rules reads as under;

"5. Application to the District Judge for determination of compensation.- Any party aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation may prefer an application to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, not later than ninety days of the receipt of the intimation from the competent authority under rule 4(3)"

2. The contention is that the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)

Act, 1962 being a special statute, the expression "not

later than ninety days" in Rule 5, providing the outer time OP(C) NO. 577 OF 2021

limit within which the application has to be filed before

the District Judge, excludes the provisions of the

Limitation Act.

3. After elaborately considering the question, a

Division Bench of this Court in Omana Kunjamma V.

Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala)

2019 (1) KLT 949 has held that an application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is maintainable for

invoking Rule 5 of the PMP Rules. Therein, the Division

Bench approved the decision of the learned Single Judge

of this Court in Petronet CCK Ltd. v. Vijayan [2005(1)

KLT 773] and disagreed with the contrary view taken by

the Gujarat High Court in Gail (India) Ltd. v.

Commanding Officer [2016 GLH (2) 7 ].

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, as against the decision in Omana

Kunjamma (Supra), the petitioner has preferred Special

Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the OP(C) NO. 577 OF 2021

same is pending consideration.

5. Be that as it may, presently I am bound by the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Omana

Kunjamma (Supra) and the original petition is to be

dismissed, confirming the finding in the impugned order.

Needless to say that the final decision on the question as

to whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be made

applicable to an application under Rule 5 of the PMP Rules

will depend upon the outcome of the Special Leave

Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The original petition is dismissed accordingly.

(Sd/-) V.G.ARUN JUDGE

LU OP(C) NO. 577 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 577/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AS IA NO.1975/2019 IN OP NO.559/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA NO.1975/2019 IN OP NO.559/2019 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2020 IN IA NO.1975/2019 IN OP NO.559/2019 PASSED BY DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.1.2021 IN OPC 151/2021

// True Copy // PA To Judge