High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-10-13Original petitions dismissed accordingly.

OP(C) No. 1892/2020 & connected cases (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam)

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) 1892/2020 & connected cases

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2021-10-13
Court Decision / Holding: The original petitions are dismissed accordingly.
Final Disposition: Original petitions dismissed accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

GAIL (India) Ltd.
Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL)

Respondents

Mohammed Ashraf
The Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, GAIL (India) Ltd.
Mammed
Aisha Panoly
Muhammed Panoly
Hafsath W/o Abboomacker Kundiladi
Ramlath P d/o Moideenkutty
Jaleel Panoly
Jabbar P
Damodaran Nair
V.T. Jameela
The Deputy Collector Competent Authority (Kerala), GAIL

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Mohammed Al Rafi
• A. K. Preetha

Counsels for Respondents

• Shri Ajith Krishnan, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This decision of the Kerala High Court (Single Judge, Justice V.G. Arun) deals with whether a District Judge can condone a 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 core issue is whether Rule 5’s outer time limit of ninety days can be complemented or overridden by the Limitation Act, particularly Section 5. The petitioners argued that the PMP regime imposes a special time limit and that the Limitation Act should not apply; they relied on prior authority and have filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn Omana Kunjamma’s view that Section 5 is applicable. The respondents, while not elaborated in detail in the excerpt, are represented by the Competent Authority of GAIL and various individual respondents, generally supporting a position consistent with previous decisions or awaiting Supreme Court guidance. The court, however, holds that it is bound by the Division Bench’s decision in Omana Kunjamma and dismisses the petitions, noting that the decisive question on Section 5’s applicability will depend on the Supreme Court’s decision in the pending SLP. The case highlights the tension between a specialized statutory regime governing land acquisition and the general Limitation Act, with the ultimate resolution to be decided by higher courts.

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 PMP RulesRule 4(3) PMP RulesLimitation Act, 1963Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Rule 5 fixes a hard outer limit of ninety days for filing an application for compensation and should be read independently of the Limitation Act. They argue that PMP Rules create a special statutory scheme whose timeline does not permit automatic application of the Limitation Act; they cite Omana Kunjamma (2019 (1) KLT 949) and Petronet CCK Ltd. v. Vijayan (2005) 1 KLT 773 to support their position and have filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging that ratio. They emphasize that the final decision on the applicability of Section 5 and its interaction with Rule 5 should await the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents advocate adherence to the controlling authority under Omana Kunjamma and, by implication, support the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied to invoke Rule 5 of the PMP Rules, with possible condonation of delay. They point to the Gujarat High Court decision in Gail (India) Ltd. v. Commanding Officer as non‑controlling, distinguishing it from Kerala’s position. They also underscore that the ultimate resolution of whether Section 5 can be made applicable remains pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the related SLP.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Omana Kunjamma v. Deputy Collector and Competent Authority (Kerala)	2019 (1) KLT 949	Positive	Division Bench held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable to invoke Rule 5 of the PMP Rules.
Petronet CCK Ltd. v. Vijayan	2005 (1) KLT 773	Positive	Approved in Omana Kunjamma and cited as supportive authority for maintainability of Section 5.
Gail (India) Ltd. v. Commanding Officer	2016 GLH (2) 7	Distinguished	Cited with a contrary view by the Gujarat High Court; Kerala court notes it as distinguishable.

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 OP(C) No. 1892/2020 & connected cases (Kerala High Court, Ernakulam) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 1892 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 99/2019 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-683 503. BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 MOHAMMED ASHRAF AGED 47 YEARS S/O.MOOSA, KUYYILTHODI HOUSE, VALUMBRAM, MALAPPURAM673 642. 2 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR, GAIL (INDIA) LTD., KINFRA HI TCH PARK, OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 503. BY ADV SHRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).50/2021, 76/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 50 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 197/2020 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 MAMMED, S/O.KUTTY MAMMED, MOLIAYIL HOUSE, ELIYAPARAMBA, KAVANUR POST, MALAPPURAM - 673 639. 2 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR GAIL (INDIA) LTD., HMT COLONY, KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 683 503. BY ADV SHRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1892/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 76 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(GAIL) 141/2020 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 AISHA PANOLY, W/O.MOIDEEN PANOLY, PANOLY HOUSE, PERUMPARAMBA, UGRAPURAM P.O, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM - 673639. 2 MUHAMMED PANOLY S/O. MOIDEEN KUTTY, KALIYAM KULAM HOUSE, UGRAPURAM P.O, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM - 673639. 3 HAFSATH W/O. ABOOBACKER KUNDILADI, KUNNATH HOUSE, PALAKKAPARAMB, KAVANNUR, MALAPPURAM -676639. 4 RAMLATH P D/O. MOIDHEENKUTTY, KALIYAMKULAM HOUSE, PERUPARAMBA, UGRAPURAM P.O, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM - 673639. 5 JALEEL PANOLY D/O. MOIDHEENKUTTY, KALIYANKULAM HOUSE, PERUPARAMBA, UGRAPURAM P.O, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM - 673639. 6 JABBAR P _**OPC.1892/20**_ _**& connected cases**_ 4 D/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KALIYAMKULAM HOUSE, UGRAPURAM P.O, AREEKODE, 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 ADV SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED, SC, THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1892/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 133 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 101/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE, 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 V.T.JAMEELA W/O. UMMER, VADAKKETHODIKA HOUSE, THECHIYAD, THAZHEKKODE, OMASSERY POST, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE-673 582. 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. R2 BY ADV SHRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1892/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 6 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 588 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 733/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE** ## **PETITIONER/S:** GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.(GAIL) REP.BY ITS 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 DAMODARAN NAIR S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, THACHAMPOYIL HOUSE, POST KANNADI POYIL, KINALOOR AMSOM DESOM, THAMARASSERY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 612. 2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR COMPETENT AUTHORITY (KERALA), GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD (GAIL), KINFRA HI TECH PARTK, OFF HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683 503. R2 BY ADV SHRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL (INDIA) LIMITED. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1892/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 7 ## **V.G.ARUN, J.** ## **---------------------------------------------------------** **OP(C) Nos.1892/2020, 50/2021, 76/2021, 133/2021, 588/2021 --------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[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 _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 8 special statute, the expression “not later than ninety days” in Rule 5, providing the outer time 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 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 _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 9 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 petitions are dismissed accordingly. **Sd/V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** _vgs_ _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 10 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 50/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION I.A.NO.1586/2019 IN O.P.NO.197/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.1586/2019 IN O.P.NO.197/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/08/2020 IN I.A.NO.1586/2019 IN O.P.NO.197/2020 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 11 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 76/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IA NO.474/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT IN IA NO.474/2019 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MAJERI. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2020 IN IA NO.474/2019 IN OP(GAIL) 141/2020 OF COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.12.2020 IN OP(CIVIL) NO.1885/2020 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 12 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 133/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.366/2019 IN O.P.NO.101/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.36/2019 IN O.P.NO.101/2019 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2020 IN I.A.NO.36/2019 IN O.P.NO.101/2019 OF THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.11.2020 IN O.P(CIVIL) NO.1885/2020. _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 13 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 588/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.2766/2019 IN O.P.NO.733/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.2766/2019 IN O.P.NO.733/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2020 IN I.A.NO.2766/2019 IN O.P.NO.733/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER INTERIM ORDER DATED 15/1/2021 IN O.P(C) NO.151/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. _**OPC.1892/20 & connected cases**_ 14 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1892/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IA NO.6/2019 IN OP(GAIL)NO.99/2019 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IA NO.6/2019 IN OP(GAIL)NO.99/2019 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2019 IN IA NO.6/2019 IN OP(GAIL)NO.99/2019 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI. - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2020 IN OP(CIVIL) NO.1371/2019 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2020 IN IA NO.6/2019 IN OP(GAIL)NO.99/2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, MANJERI. - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETROLEUM AND MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT 1962(PMP ACT). EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETROLEUM AND MINERALS PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) RULES 1963 (PMP RULES).