IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 370 of 2005()
1. MUHAMMED, S/O. PAREETHM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE PETRONET C.C.K.LIMITED REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MOHAMMED PUZHAKKARA
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :09/07/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRP.No. 370 OF 2005
............................................
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner filed O.P.33 of 2001 before Additional District
Court, North Parvur, claiming enhanced compensation for
drawing of pipe line of Petroleum products under C.C.K.Karur –
Kochi Petronet Project. The total extent acquired is 0.726
hectares. Petition was not filed within the period provided
under Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Lines (acquisition of right of
user in land)Act, 1962(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Under Section 10 of the Act, a person interested in the land
under which pipeline is proposed to be laid or is being or has
been laid, is entitled to such damage, loss of injury, the amount
of which shall be determined by the competent authority in first
instance. Under Rule 5, an application for determination of
compensation by any party aggrieved by the determination of the
amount of compensation, is to be filed not later than 90 days
from the date of receipt of intimation from the competent
authority as provided under sub-rule 3 of Rule 4. Petitioner filed
the petition before Additional District Court only 303 days from
that day. Hence a petition was filed under Section 5 of the
CRP 370/2005 2
Limitation Act to condone the delay. Learned District Judge, as
per the impugned order, dismissed the petition to condone the
delay and consequently dismissed the petition. It is challenged in
this revision petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
procedure.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the
respondent were heard at the admission stage itself.
3. The respondent is not disputing the power of the court to
condone the delay in filing the petition as provided under Rule 5
of the Petroleum Pipelines (acquisition of right and user in land)
Rules, 1963(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The only
question is whether petitioner has satisfactorily explained the
delay and if so, whether delay is liable to be condoned. Learned
counsel appearing for petitioner argued that petitioner was
informed that his claim for enhanced compensation would be
referred to the court as in the case of Land Acquisition cases and
he never knew that there is a period of 90 days provided for
filing a petition. It was contended that petitioner bonafide
believed that he could file a petition as provided under the
Telegraph Act and it is in such circumstances, petition was not
filed within the period provided under Rule 5 of the Rules and
CRP 370/2005 3
therefore learned District Judge should have condoned the
delay.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent argued that
ignorance of law is not an excuse and for that reason delay
cannot be condoned. It was also argued that when delay was not
properly explained and reason shown is not satisfactory, learned
District Judge was justified in not condoning the delay and
therefore there is no illegality or irregularity warranting
interference.
5. It cannot be disputed that petitioner is not to gain
anything by purposely protracting the filing of the petition.
Delay is not to the advantage of the petitioner to any extent. In
such circumstances, it cannot be said that delay was caused
wilfully. At best, it could be said that petitioner was negligent.
The question is whether for that negligence, petitioner is to be
denied the benefit provided under the Act, if the delay could be
compensated by cost.
6. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, I.A.200
of 2001 filed by petitioner to condone the delay will stand
allowed on petitioner paying a cost of Rs.1000/- to respondent,
within two weeks from today. If the cost is paid, revision petition
CRP 370/2005 4
will stand allowed and delay, as sought for in I.A.200 of 2001,
will stand condoned. In that event, Additional District Judge,
North Paravur shall dispose O.P 33 of 2001 in accordance with
law. If the cost is not paid, CRP will stand dismissed, confirming
the order passed by learned District Judge.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-