Important Point – Provisions of Limitation Act would not be applicable to an application under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of Section 10 of P&MP Act.

HARSHA DEVANI, J.

1. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule. Since all these petitions involve similar questions of law, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. All these petitions except Special Civil Application No.14358/2013 have been filed by GAIL (India) Limited challenging the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara on the delay condonation applications filed by the respondent - claimants whereby the applications have been allowed and the delay caused in filing the applications under sub-section (2) or (5) of section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the P&MP Act”) has been condoned.

3. Special Civil Application No.14358/2013 has been filed by the original claimant challenging the order dated 31st May, 2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dahod in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.5/2013 whereby the application filed by GAIL (India) Limited seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the application under section 10 of the P&MP Act has been allowed.

4. In all these cases, pursuant to orders passed by the competent authority under the P&MP Act, awarding compensation to the claimants, the aggrieved party namely, GAIL (India) Limited/the claimants filed applications before the District Court under section 10 of the P&MP Act. However, there was a delay in filing such applications and hence, the concerned parties had also moved applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay caused in filing such applications. By separate orders passed on such applications, the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the applications and has condoned the delay, which has given rise to the present petitions.

5. Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate, learned counsel with Mr. Vishwas Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of GAIL (India) Limited assailed the impugned orders by submitting that provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply to an application made either under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of section 10 of the P&MP Act and hence, the learned District Judge was not justified in allowing the applications for condonation of delay. The attention of the court was invited to the relevant provisions of the P&MP Act to point out that under the scheme of the said Act, section 10 makes provision for compensation in respect of any damage or loss or injury sustained by any person interested in the land under which the pipeline is proposed to be, or is being, or has been laid. Under sub-section (2), if the compensation determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of compensation shall, on application by either of the parties to the District Judge within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situated, be determined by the District Judge. It was submitted that similarly, in case of land, under sub-section (5) of section 10, the market value of the land on the said date, is required to be determined by the competent authority and if the value so determined by that authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, it shall, on application made by either of the parties to the District Judge referred to in sub-section (2), be determined by that District Judge. It was pointed out that the decision of the District Judge under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of section 10 of the P&MP Act shall be final. The attention of the court was further invited to section 14 of the P&MP Act which provides for ‘Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts’. It was submitted that, therefore, by virtue of section 14, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of any matter which the competent authority is empowered by or under the Act to determine, is expressly barred. It was submitted that on a perusal of the provision