Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14331
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
SMT. GEETHA SURESH – Appellant
Versus
GAIL (INDIA)LTD – Respondent
CRP 126/2020
SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN, SMT.N.D.DEEPA, SRI.K.M.BIJU, SMT.REMANI KUTTY P.S., SMT.LATHA ANAND, SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN, SMT.G SHHEBA GP
The court ruled that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Limitation Act is warranted in cases of beneficial legislation, allowing the condonation of a significant delay in filing for enhanced compensation.
Headnote:(A) Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 - Section 2(a) and Section 10(4) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Delay in filing application for enhanced compensation - Petitioner failed to file application for condonation of delay within the stipulated period - Court held that sufficient cause for delay was established due to the petitioner's bona fide belief regarding limitation commencement - Delay of 1917 days condoned and Original Petition restored. (Paras 1, 8, 14, 17)
(B) Sufficient Cause - The expression 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be interpreted liberally, especially in cases involving beneficial legislation, provided negligence or lack of bona fides is not attributed to the party. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of her Original Petition for enhanced compensation for land acquired for laying a pipeline, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that she was under the impression that the limitation period commenced with a later government order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner established sufficient cause for the delay and allowed the condonation of delay, restoring the Original Petition for consideration on merits.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner could establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the Original Petition for enhanced compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the law of limitation is strict, a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' is warranted in cases of beneficial legislation, provided there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER
The challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the orders dated 10.01.2020 in I.A. No. 8201 of 2019 and O.P.(PMP) No.234 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Court – II, Ernakulam. The Revision Petitioner is the owner in possession of 24.64 Ares of property in Re.Sy.No.414 in Block No.6 of Thrikkakara North Village. On 03.09.2010, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (Government of India) published notification No.S.O.2170 (E) acquiring the right of user of 8.16 Ares of property for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of natural gas.
2. Thereafter, the competent authority constituted under Section 2 (a) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’) awarded a compensation amounting to Rs.1,21,557/- to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner filed O.P. (PMP) No.234 of 2018 under Section 10 (4) of the Act read with Rules 4 and 5 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 (for short “the Rules”) before the District Court, Ernakulam.
4. The District Court dismissed the Original Petition as barred by limitation.
5. This order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader.
7. The Original Petition was filed by the petitioner on 24.10.2018. The petitioner received information regarding the award on 24.04.2013, the date on which she received the compensation. While filing the Original Petition seeking enhanced compensation, the petitioner had not filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the petition.
8. As per the Rules, any party aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation may prefer the application seeking enhanced compensation to the District Judge not later than 90 days of the receipt of the intimation from the competent authority under Rule 4(3). As the petitioner did not file any application seeking condonation of delay, the District Judged dismissed the Original Petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after passing of the award by the competent authority, the Government considered the inadequacy of the compensation and passed several orders restructuring the method of fixing fair value and market value. The learned counsel submitted that the latest order in that series was passed on 01.12.2017 by the Government. It is submitted that the petitioner was of the bona fide belief that the limitation period for filing an application seeking enhanced compensation, as provided in Rule 5, commenced with the final decision following the latest Government order. It is submitted that this was the reason why the petitioner did not file an application seeking condonation of delay. The learned counsel now conceded that the limitation for filing the application seeking enhanced compensation started on 25.04.2013. It is further submitted that the petitioner could establish sufÏcient explanation for the delay caused in making the application. The petitioner, therefore, filed CMA seeking condonation of delay and prayed for considering the same on merits.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents resisted the application and submitted that the petitioner failed to establish any convincing reason for condoning the delay of 1917 days. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had knowledge regarding the passing of the compensation by the competent authority as early as in 2013.
11. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
Even during the process of acquiring the right of user, the petitioner pointed out mistakes in the preparation of the valuation statement, but respondent No.2 did not consider them. Meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.(Rt)No. 3195/13/RD dated 04.06.2013 increasing the compensation by fixing the market value of the acquired land as 5 times the fair value. The petitione
