OMANAKUNJAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to an application for determination of compensation filed under Rule 5 of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') before the District Judge? This is the question to be answered in this reference.

(2.) The property of the petitioner was acquired for laying pipeline for carrying petroleum gas and compensation was granted to her under the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation, the petitioner filed application under Rule 5 before the District Court, Ernakulam. There was a delay of 645 days in filing that application. The petitioner had filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay. It was dismissed by the District Court stating that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The aforesaid order is challenged in the revision petition.

(3.) When the revision petition came up before the learned Single Judge, it was noticed that, in Petronet CCK Ltd. Vs. Vijayan [2005(1) KLT 773], this Court has held that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to an application filed under Rule 5 but a contrary view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Gail (India) Ltd. Vs. Commanding Officer [2016 GLH (2) 7 ]. The reference is made to resolve the conflict.