Chief Manager, Gas Authority of India Ltd. v Narayani Amma

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **OP(C).No.2724 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 126/2018 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONER:** **CHIEF MANAGER GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.(GAIL), KINFRA HIGH TECH PARK, HMT-MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD, HMT COLONY P O, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683503 REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER** **BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI** ## **RESPONDENT:** **NARAYANI AMMA POOMADATHIL HOUSE, POONATH P O, NADUVANNUR VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673614** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN R1 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **-2-** ## **OP(C).No.2724 OF 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** The right of user of the land of the respondent was acquired by the petitioner in Re.Sy.No.36/1 of Avidanallur Village in Koyilandy Taluk under the provisions of the Petroleum And Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’). The compensation was awarded to the respondent. However, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the competent authority, the respondent filed application under Section 10 of the Act before the District Court. However, there was delay of 43 days in filing the application. The District Court condoned the delay in filing the application, against which this original petition has been filed. **-3-** ## **OP(C).No.2724 OF 2018** 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of R.5 of the Petroleum And Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules'), the application challenging the order of the competent authority shall be filed within 90 days and since there is no provision for condoning the delay as per the above Rules, the District Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the application. 4. Admittedly, there is no provision under the Rules to condone the delay in filing the application. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation **-4-** **OP(C).No.2724 OF 2018** different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The Division Bench of this Court in Omanakunjamma vs. The Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala) [2019 (1) KLT 949] held that in the absence of a special period provided for condonation of delay, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963, Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply to an application filed **-5-** ## **OP(C).No.2724 OF 2018** under rule 5 of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision in Omanakunjamma (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the matter is presently pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no stay was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter. In view of the above, the decision in Omanakunjamma (supra) is binding on this Court. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the District Court had the authority to condone the delay in filing the application. Therefore, the argument in this regard advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 5. The District Court had found that there was sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the **-6-** **OP(C).No.2724 OF 2018** application. Having gone through Ext.P3 order, I am satisfied that the District Court exercised its discretion correctly to condone the delay in filing the application. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the discretion exercised by the District Court is perverse or arbitrary. In the said circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the reasons stated by the District Court for condoning the delay in filing the application. In the result, this original petition stands dismissed. Needless to state that if the Hon'ble Apex Court reverses the finding in Omanakunjamma (supra) that the District Court had jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the application, the petitioner shall be **-7-** **OP(C).No.2724 OF 2018** at liberty to approach the court for setting aside Ext.P3 order. **Sd/-** **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** # **JUDGE** Nkr/18.12.2019 **-8-** ## **OP(C).No.2724 OF 2018** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 387/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A NO. 387/18** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/7/2018 IN I.A NO. 387/2018 IN O.P(PETRO) NO. 126/2018 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE** **EXHIBIT P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE PETROLEUM AND MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT 1962(PMP ACT)** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETROLEUM AND MINERALS PIPELINES(ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) RULES 1963(PMP RULES)** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL**