In these revision petitions, the petitioner Petronet CCK Ltd. Has challenged the order passed by the District Court, Palakkad condoning the delay in filing the application for enhanced compensation under Section 10(2) of the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Act provides for the acquisition of right of use of the land for laying pipelines for transport of petroleum and minerals and for matters connected therewith. As per the provisions of the Act, the owners of the land are entitled to compensation for the damages caused to the land. This is to be determined by the competent authority under the Act.

2. The owners of the land were not satisfied with the order passed by the competent authority. They have approached the District Court by challenging the order passed by the competent authority. Section 10(2) of the Act says thus:

“If the amount of 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 that District Judge”.

Section 17 of the Act provides for framing of Rules by the Central Government. Accordingly, Rules have been framed as the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963. Rule 4 of the above Rules says that any person interested in any land may file before the competent Authority a claim for compensation within 60 days of the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6(1). There is a proviso stating that the competent authority may admit any claim within thirty days after the expiry of the period specified in this sub-rule, if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within such specified periods. Rule 5 deals with the application to the District Judge for determination for compensation. It says that 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).

3. The question for consideration is whether under Rule 5, if any application is not filed within ninety days, the court has got power to condone the delay. The court below held that it has got power and accordingly, condoned the delay in filing the application.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri. K.P. Sreekumar contended that a comparison between Rules 4 and 5 will reveal that there is no power for the District Judge to condone the delay in filing the application under Rule 5. He brought to my notice Rule 4 where the competent authority is given power to condone the delay of thirty days whereas no such power is given to the District Judge under Rule 5. Further, he contended that Rule 5 itself says that no application shall be received later than ninety days.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, if any period is fixed differently by an enactment and there is express provision against condoning delay, then the provisions of the Limitation Act will be excluded. But in the present case, since there is no express exclusion, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. In Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 105, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“There is an important departure made by the Limitation Act, 1963 is so far as the provision contained in Section 29, sub-section (2) is concerned. Since under the Limitation Act, 1963, Sec.5 is specifically made applicable by Section 29, Sub-Section (2), it can be availed of for the purpose of extending the period of limitation prescribed