Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeOriginal petitions dismissed.

GAIL (India) Ltd. v Moyinkutty Musliar and others (OP(C) Nos. 81 of 2021 & 492 of 2021)

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) Nos. 81 of 2021 & 492 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2021-10-26
Court Decision / Holding
The original petitions are dismissed.
Final Disposition
Original petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • GAIL (India) Ltd.

Respondents

  • Moyinkutty Musliar S/O.Hydrose, Kodakadan Kunnu House, Areekode AMSOM, Chemmrakattoor Desom, Eranad Taluk, Malappuram-673634
  • Saleena T.C., D/O.Mayinkutty, Kodakadan Kunnu House, Areekode AMSOM, Chemmrakattoor Desom, Eranad Taluk, Malappuram-673634
  • Haseena Thalayancheri, D/O.Mayinkutty, Kodakadan Kunnu House, Areekode AMSOM, Chemmrakattoor Desom, Eranad Taluk, Malappuram-673634
  • MUBEENA T., W/O.AL I AKBAR K., PILAKKAL HOUSE, KOCHAMKULAM, THENKURUSSI, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678541
  • MUHAMMED SADIQUE T.C., S/O.MAYINKUTTY, KODAKADAN KUNNU HOUSE, ARE EKODE AMSOM, CHEMMRAKATTOOR DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673639
  • ABDUL HAKKEEM T.C., D/O.MAYINKUTTY, KODAKADAN KUNNU HOUSE, AREEKODE AMSOM, CHEMMRAKATTOOR DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673639
  • THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR, GAIL (INDIA) LTD., HMT COLONY, KINFRA HI TECH PARK, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683503.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S. Mohammed Al Rafi
  • • A.K. Preetha

Counsels for Respondents

  • • P.C. Muhammed Noushiq
  • • Ajith Krishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

These original petitions challenge the District Judge’s power to condone 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 (PMP Rules). The issue centers on whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked to extend the outer 90-day period prescribed by Rule 5 for filing such applications, despite the PMP regime being a special statute. The petitioner, GAIL (India) Ltd., contends that Rule 5 imposes a strict outer time-limit that does not automatically exclude the Limitation Act; the respondents advance Omana Kunjumma v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (2019) (1 KLT 949) and Petronet CCK Ltd. v. Vijayan (2005) (1 KLT 773) to support Section 5 applicability, while also noting a pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The court, however, states it is bound by Omana Kunjumma and dismisses the petitions, leaving the ultimate question of Section 5’s applicability to await the Supreme Court’s decision on the SLP. The final order dismisses the petitions and leaves the law’s ultimate framing to the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling.

Provisions of Law Cited

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963Rule 5 of the PMP RulesRule 4(3) PMP RulesLimitation Act, 1963 – Section 5

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that Rule 5 of the PMP Rules fixes a ninety-day outer time limit for filing an application for determination of compensation and that the Limitation Act cannot be understood to automatically exclude that period. They rely on Omana Kunjumma v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala) (2019) (1 KLT 949) and Petronet CCK Ltd. v. Vijayan (2005) (1 KLT 773) to argue that Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked to condone delay in such filings. They also note that a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court is pending, suggesting the ultimate legislation on Section 5 awaits that decision. They urge a law-and-justice approach consistent with these authorities pending final Supreme Court guidance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Rule 5 imposes an outer time limit of ninety days and that the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delay, pointing to the Gujarat High Court view in Gail (India) Ltd. v. Commanding Officer. They argue that the PMP Rules create a self-contained regime and that the Court should dismiss petitions unless the Supreme Court resolves the issue. They emphasize Omana Kunjumma’s interpretation as binding only to the extent followed, but contend the ultimate resolution lies in the Supreme Court’s decision on the pending SLP.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Omana Kunjumma v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala)2019 (1) KLT 949PositiveDivision Bench held Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Rule 5 PMP Rules; the decision is binding on the court.
Petronet CCK Ltd. v. Vijayan2005 (1) KLT 773PositiveApproved by the Omana Kunjumma decision; supports applicability of Section 5.
Gail (India) Ltd. v. Commanding Officer2016 GLH (2) 7DistinguishedGujarat High Court's contrary view; court disagrees with it.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against GAIL (India) Ltd. v Moyinkutty Musliar and others (OP(C) Nos. 81 of 2021 & 492 of 2021) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 81 OF 2021`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(GAIL) 139/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM ``` ## **`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-683503. ``` ``` BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 MOYINKUTTY MUSLIAR S/O.HYDROSE, KODAKADAN KUNNU HOUSE, AREEKODE AMSOM, CHEMMRAKATTOOR DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673634.`** - **`2 SALEENA T.C., D/O.MAYINKUTTY, KODAKADAN KUNNU HOUSE, AREEKODE AMSOM, CHEMMRAKATTOOR DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673634.`** - **`3 HASEENA THALAYANCHERI, D/O.MAYINKUTTY, KODAKADAN KUNNU HOUSE, AREEKODE AMSOM, CHEMMRAKATTOOR DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673634.`** - **`4 MUBEENA T.,`** - **`W/O. ALI AKBAR K., PILAKKAL HOUSE, KOCHAMKULAM, THENKURUSSI, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD-678541.`** - **`5 MUHAMMED SADIQUE T.C., S/O.MAYINKUTTY, KODAKADAN KUNNU HOUSE, AREEKODE AMSOM, CHEMMRAKATTOOR DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673639.`** - **`6 ABDUL HAKKEEM T.C., D/O.MAYINKUTTY, KODAKADAN KUNNU HOUSE, AREEKODE AMSOM, CHEMMRAKATTOOR DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673639.`** - **`7 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR, GAIL (INDIA) LTD., KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683503. BY ADVS.`** - **`P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED, SC,`** ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).492/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`OP(C) NOs. 81 OF 2021 & 492 OF 2021`** ## **`2`** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 492 OF 2021`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 188/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT& ``` ## **`SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` THE GAIL (INDIA) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (O AND M), KINFRA HI TECH PARK, OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-683 503. ``` ``` BY ADV A.K.PREETHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 ASSIYA PARAPURATH, W/O.MOHAMMED KAIPAKASSERY, PARAPURATH HOUSE, MADARUKUNDU, CHENGARU, IRUVETTY P.O., KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM-673 639.`** - **`2 ARIFA, W/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, ADILAS HOUSE, VELLARI, CHEMRAKATTOOR, AREEKODE P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 639.`** - **`3 SALEEM.K., S/O.MOHAMMED, KAIPAKASSERY, PARAPPURAM HOUSE, MADARUKUNDU, CHENGARA, IRUVETTY P.O., KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM-673 639.`** - **`4 MOHAMMED SHAREEF.K., S/O.MOHAMMED, KAIPAKASSERY, PARAPPURAM HOUSE, MADARUKUNDU, ELAYUR, IRUVETTY P.O., KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM-673 639.`** - **`5 RASHIDA.K., D/O.MOHAMMED KAIPAKASSERY, PARAPPURAM HOUSE, MADARUKUNDU, CHENGARA, IRUVETTY P.O., KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM-673 639.`** - **`6 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR, GAIL (INDIA) LTD., HMT COLONY, KINFRA HI TECH PARK, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 503.`** - **`BY ADV SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED, SC,`** ## **`OP(C) NOs. 81 OF 2021 & 492 OF 2021`** ``` 3 ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).81/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`OP(C) NOs. 81 OF 2021 & 492 OF 2021`** ``` 4 ``` ## **V.G.ARUN, J.** **---------------------------------------------------------** **`OP(C) Nos.81 & 492 OF 2021` --------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of October, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** The short question arising for consideration in these original petitions 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 limit within which the application has to ## **`OP(C) NOs. 81 OF 2021 & 492 OF 2021`** ``` 5 ``` 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 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). Hence, the original petitions are liable 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 ``` OP(C) NOs. 81 OF 2021 & 492 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` PMP Rules will depend upon the outcome of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The original petitions are dismissed accordingly. **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** SJ ``` OP(C) NOs. 81 OF 2021 & 492 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 492/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN OP NO.188/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN IA NO.1196/2019 IN OP NO.188/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2020 IN IA NO.1196/2019 IN OP NO.188/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`OP(C) NOs. 81 OF 2021 & 492 OF 2021`** ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 81/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.479/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT IN I.A.479/2019 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.7.2020 IN I.A.NO.479/2019 IN O.P.(GAIL) NO.139/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.12.2020 IN O.P.(CIVIL) NO.1885/2020 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ```