Competent Authority under the PMP Act cannot conduct inquiries into validity of allegations before submitting applications for removal of constructions, which is the jurisdiction of the District Court.

JUDGMENT :

M.A.Abdul Hakhim, J.

1. Since common issues arise in these Writ Petitions, I dispose of these Writ Petitions by a common judgment. In both these Writ Petitions, GAIL (India) Ltd. is the Petitioner. As part of its business, the Petitioner has been laying pipelines after obtaining the right of user in land according to the provisions under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the PMP Act’). The impugned Orders are Ext.P11 produced in W.P.(C) No.13664/2025 and Ext.P9 produced in W.P.(C) No.14191/2025, passed by the 1^st respondent/Competent Authority under the PMP Act.

2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned Orders rejecting the Proforma Applications of the petitioner requesting the Competent Authority to file an Application under Section 9 (3) of the PMP Act for the removal of constructions made by the landowners after the publication of the Declaration under Section 6 (1) of the PMP Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the Competent Authority has no right or authority to consider the claim by itself without filing an Application to the Court of District Judge under (3) of the PMP Act.

3. The 1^st Respondent/Competent Authority has filed Counter Affidavits in both the Writ Petitions opposing the prayers in the Writ Petitions and asserting its authority to consider the claim before filing an Application to the Court of District Judge under Section 9 (3) of the PMP Act.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. A.K.Preetha, and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, Sri. Ajith Krishnan.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the petitioner makes a Proforma Application to the Competent Authority requesting to file an Application to the Court of District Judge under Section 9 (3) of the PMP Act for removal of constructions made by the landowner after the date of publication of Section 6 (1) Declaration, the Competent Authority has no right or authority to conduct an enquiry and verify the allegations to decide whether the Application is to be submitted by the Competent Authority to the District Court or not. The learned counsel pointed out that the powers of the Civil Court conferred on the Competent Authority under Section 12 of the PMP Act are only for the purpose of determination of the compensation under Section 10 of the PMP Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent contended that it is well within the powers of the Competent Authority to conduct an enquiry to satisfy the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner before submitting the Application by it before the District Court. Such power is implicit under Section 12 of the PMP Act, which confers the power of the Civil Court to the Competent Authority. In this case, even going by the Proforma Applications submitted by the petitioner, the dates of the alleged constructions to be removed are before the date of the Section 6 (1) Declaration under the PMP Act.

7. I have considered the rival contentions.

8. In the Proforma Applications produced in both these Writ Petitions, the date of construction is shown to have been made before the Section 6 (1) Declaration. In these cases, (1) Declaration was published on 08.08.2013. In Proforma Applications in W.P.(C) Nos.13364 & 14191 of 2025, the year of construction is shown as 2010 and 2008 respectively. The