IMPORTANT POINTS :• The Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, shall be liable to pay compensation to the person who met any damage, loss or injury to their property under the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and The Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules.

• Section 417(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 provided that an application for special leave to appeal should be made before the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal.

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

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. v. Vijayan [2005(1) KLT 773], this Court has held that Section 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. v. Commanding Officer [2016 GLH (2) 7]. The reference is made to resolve the conflict.

4. Rule 5 of the Rules reads as follows:

“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)”.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the expression ''not later than ninety days'' in Rule 5 does not operate as a clause excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned counsel would contend that, since there is no specific exclusion of the provisions of the Limitation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application under Rule 5.

6. Learned senior counsel, who appeared for the respondents, contended that the expression ''not later than ninety days'' in Rule 5 provides the outer limit within which the application has to be filed before the District Judge and it excludes the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act. Learned senior counsel also referred to similar provisions in other enactments and the decisions of the Apex Court thereon in support of his contention.

7. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that where in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4, Section 7, or Section 8 by any person, any damage, loss or injury is sustained by any person interested in the land under which the pipeline is proposed to be, or is being, or has been laid, the Central Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay compensation to such person for such damage, loss or injury, the amount of which shall be determined by the competent authority in the first instance. Section 10(2) of the Act states that if the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority under subsection (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.

8. At the outset it is to be mentioned that the respondents have got no plea that the District Judge who deals with the application under Section 10(2) of the Act is a persona designata and that he does not function as a Court.

9. In Petronet (supra)