Kerala High Court
Deputy Collector & Competent Authority vs The Gail (India) Ltd., Represented By … on 29 June, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 1 2026:KER:46837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1948
WA NO. 3227 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2025 IN WP(C) NO.13664 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY
GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED (GAIL), KINFRA HI-
TECH PARK, OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI, PIN -
683503
BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.POOJA SUNIL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 THE GAIL (INDIA) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
MANAGER (O&M)
KINFRA HI-TECH PARK, OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY
P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI, PIN
- 683503
2 KUNHAMMED @ THARAKA AMMED
S/O POCKER, THARAKA HOUSE, KAKKAMVALLY, NADAPURAM
P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673504
BY ADV SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 2 2026:KER:46837
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. A.R.L. SUNDARESAN, ASGI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.1/2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 3 2026:KER:46837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1948
WA NO. 1 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2025 IN WP(C) NO.14191 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY
GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED (GAIL), KINFRA HI-
TECH PARK, OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI, PIN -
683503
BY SRI.ARL SUNDARESAN, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA
ADVS.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.POOJA SUNIL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 THE GAIL (INDIA) LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (O&M), KINFRA
HI-TECH PARK, OFF-HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI, PIN -
683503
2 ONTHATH ABBAS
S/O MOIDU, THUNERI P.O., THUNERI, PIN - 673505
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 4 2026:KER:46837
BY ADV SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. A.R.L. SUNDARESAN, ASGI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.3227/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 5 2026:KER:46837
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
These writ appeals are filed by the 1st respondent in
W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025 and W.P.(C)No.14191 of 2025, namely,
the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority under the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in
Land) Act, 1962, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the common judgment
dated 03.12.2025 of the learned Single Judge in those writ
petitions filed by 1st respondent herein-Gas Authority of India
Limited (GAIL), represented by its General Manager, invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
2. W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025 was filed by GAIL, seeking a
writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 communication dated
10.08.2024 and Ext.P12 communication dated 18.09.2024 of the
Competent Authority; a declaration that the Competent Authority
lacks jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry under sub-section (3) of
Section 9 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and hence Exts.P11 and P12 are
without jurisdiction; a writ of mandamus commanding the
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 6 2026:KER:46837
Competent Authority to file an application based on Ext.P8
proforma report before the court of competent jurisdiction, as
provided in sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the said Act. Along with
the writ petition, the petitioner-GAIL produced Exts.P1 to P14.
2.1. W.P.(C)No.14191 of 2025 was filed by GAIL, seeking a
writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 communication dated 10.08.2024
and Ext.P10 communication dated 18.09.2024 issued by the
Competent Authority; a declaration that the Competent Authority
lacks jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry under sub-section (3) of
Section 9 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and hence Ext.P9 and P10 are
without jurisdiction; a writ of mandamus commanding the
Competent Authority to file an application based on Ext.P6
proforma report before the court of competent jurisdiction, as
provided in sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the said Act. Along with
the writ petition, the petitioner-GAIL produced Exts.P1 to P12.
3. The 1st respondent-Competent Authority filed counter
affidavits dated 20.05.2025 in both the writ petitions, opposing
the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Ext.R1A proforma
report submitted by GAIL. The 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.13664
of 2025 has also filed a counter affidavit dated 19.08.2025.
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 7 2026:KER:46837
4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record
and the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge,
by a common judgment dated 03.12.2025, allowed the writ
petitions, by setting aside Ext.P11 communication dated
10.08.2024 of the 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025 and
Ext.P9 communication dated 10.08.2024 in W.P.(C)No.14191 of
2025, and directed the Competent Authority to reconsider the
proforma reports submitted by the petitioner-GAIL afresh, in the
light of the observations contained therein, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. The
petitioner was given liberty to seek correction of the proforma
reports. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the common judgment dated
03.12.2025 read thus;
“9. If the petitioner had made any mistake in the Proforma
Application, the petitioner should have taken steps to
correct the said mistake. No Application was submitted by
the petitioner to the Competent Authority pointing out that
the petitioner committed a mistake while preparing the
Proforma Application and seeking correction of the same.
The petitioner could have submitted an application for
rectification or correction or an application explaining the
mistake before the 1st respondent. If the Proforma
Application itself would reveal that the construction was
made after publication of Section 6(1) declaration, it is well
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 8 2026:KER:46837within the competence of the 1st respondent to refuse to file
the Application under Section 9(3) to Court of District Judge,
as the said provision permits filing of Application by the
Competent Authority for removal of construction made after
the publication of Section 6(1) declaration. But Section 6(1)
of the PMP Act does not authorise the Competent Authority
to conduct an enquiry as to the veracity of the allegations
to decide whether the application is to be submitted by it
before the Court of District Judge under Section 9(3) of the
PMP Act for removal of the construction objected to by the
petitioner. It is within the jurisdiction of the Court of District
Judge to conduct such an enquiry and decide whether the
objected construction was made before the publication of
the Section 6(1) declaration for ordering removal of the
same. The impugned orders in both the writ petitions would
show that the Competent Authority conducted an enquiry
and entered a finding that the construction was made before
the publication of Section 6(1) declaration. The impugned
orders are liable to be set aside on this score alone.
10. Of course, certain powers of the Civil Court are conferred
on the Competent Authority under Section 12 of the PMP
Act, but those powers do not enable the Competent
Authority to conduct an enquiry as to the veracity of the
allegations in the Proforma Application to decide whether
the Application is to be submitted by it before the Court of
District Judge under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act for removal
of the construction objected to by the petitioner. No
preliminary enquiry whatsoever is contemplated under
Section 9(3) of the PMP Act before submission of the
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 9 2026:KER:46837application to the Court of District Judge on receipt of a
request for removal of objected construction.
11. Accordingly, I allow these writ petitions by issuing a writ
of certiorari setting aside Ext.P11 order in W.P.(C) No.13664
of 2025 and Ext.P9 order in W.P.(C)No.14191 of 2025 and
directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the Proforma
Applications submitted by the petitioner afresh in the light
of the observations contained herein, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner is given liberty to seek correction of the
Proforma Application.” (underline supplied)
5. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
03.12.2025 in W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025 is under challenge in
W.A.No.3227 of 2025, and the judgment in W.P.(C)No.14191 of
2025 is under challenge in W.A.No.1 of 2026. Along with
W.A.No.3227 of 2025, Annexure 1 is produced as an additional
document. Along with W.A.No.1 of 2026, Annexure A1 is produced
as additional document.
6. On 08.01.2026, when these writ appeals came up for
admission, the learned Standing Counsel for GAIL took notice on
admission for the 1st respondent in both the writ appeals. Urgent
notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 2nd
respondent in the respective writ appeals, returnable by
12.01.2026.
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 10 2026:KER:46837
7. On 12.01.2026, when these writ appeals came up for
consideration, it was reported by Registry that notice issued to the
2nd respondent in W.A.No.1 of 2026 returned with an endorsement
‘working abroad’. Service of notice was complete on the 2nd
respondent in W.A.No.3227 of 2025. Pursuant to the orders of this
Court, service of notice on the 2nd respondent in W.A.No.1 of 2026
was effected by paper publication. A copy of the paper publication
was placed on record, along with a memo dated 25.03.2026 filed
in W.A.No.1 of 2026 by the learned instructing counsel. By the
order dated 08.04.2026, service of notice was declared complete
on the 2nd respondent in W.A.No.1 of 2026.
8. Along with I.A.No.3 of 2026 in W.A.No.3227 of 2025,
the 1st respondent-GAIL has placed on record Annexures R1(a) to
R1(e) additional documents to show that Sri. Shajahan S., the
Deputy Collector and the Competent Authority, has already been
repatriated on 28.05.2026, on expiry of the term of deputation, to
join his parent department on 29.05.2026. The learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant sought time to get instructions, through
the learned instructing counsel. Annexures R1(a) to R1(e) are also
placed on record as additional documents in W.A.No.1 of 2026.
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 11 2026:KER:46837
9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-
Competent Authority and the learned Additional Solicitor General
of India for the 1st respondent-GAIL. Despite service of notice,
none appears for the 2nd respondent in the respective writ appeals.
During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India would submit that this Court need not consider
the contentions raised by the 1st respondent-GAIL with reference
to the additional documents marked as Annexures R1(a) to R1(e)
in both the writ appeals.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-1st
respondent and also the learned Additional Solicitor General of
India for the 1st respondent-petitioner addressed detailed
arguments with specific reference to the provisions contained in
the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User
in Land) Act, 1962 (Act 50 of 1962).
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-1st
respondent would submit that the finding of the learned Single
Judge in the impugned Judgment dated 03.12.2025 that on
receipt of a proforma report from GAIL, no preliminary inquiry
whatsoever by the Competent Authority is contemplated under
sub-section (3) of Section 9 of Act 50 of 1962 before an application
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 12 2026:KER:46837being made to the Court of the District Judge within the local limits
of whose jurisdiction such land is situate, is legally unsustainable.
The Competent Authority, in exercise of its powers under sub-
section (3) of Section 9 of Act 50 of 1962, is not expected to make
an application to the Court of the District Judge within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the land in question is situate, when a
proforma report submitted by GAIL does not prima facie reveal
any objectionable construction, excavation or planting of any tree,
as enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (3) of Section
9.
12. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the
1st respondent-petitioner would contend that no interference is
warranted on the impugned Judgment dated 03.12.2025 of the
learned Single Judge, since the learned Single Judge has only
directed the Competent Authority to consider the applications
made by GAIL afresh, after the submission of corrected proforma
reports. In addition to a sketch, the corrected proforma reports to
be submitted by GAIL before the Competent Authority shall also
contain satellite imagery and other materials to prima facie reveal
the objectionable construction, excavation or planting of any tree,
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 13 2026:KER:46837as enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (3) of Section
9.
13. The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Act 50 of 1962) provides for the
acquisition of right of user in land for laying pipelines for the
transport of petroleum and minerals and for matters connected
therewith. Clause (a) of Section 2 of Act 50 of 1962 defines
‘Competent Authority’ to mean any person or authority authorised
by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette,
to perform the functions of the competent authority under this Act
and different persons or authorities may be authorised to perform
all or any of the functions of the Competent Authority under this
Act, in the same area or different areas specified in the
notification.
14. Section 3 of Act 50 of 1962 deals with publication of
notification for acquisition; Section 4 deals with power to enter,
survey, etc.; Section 5 deals with hearing of objections by any
person interested in the land, made within twenty-one days from
the date of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3, by
the Competent Authority; and Section 6 deals with declaration of
acquisition of right of user. In view of the provisions under sub-
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 14 2026:KER:46837section (2) of Section 6, on the publication of the declaration under
sub-section (1) that the right of user in land for laying the
pipelines should be acquired, on being satisfied that such land is
required for laying any pipelines for the transport of petroleum or
any mineral, the right of user in the land specified therein shall
vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances.
15. Section 7 of Act 50 of 1962 empowers the Central
Government or State Government or a Corporation, as defined in
clause (b) of Section 2, to lay pipelines; and Section 8 deals with
power to enter land for inspection, etc. Section 9, which deals with
restrictions regarding the use of land, reads thus;
“9. Restrictions regarding the use of land.- (1) The owner
or occupier of the land with respect to which a declaration
has been made under sub-section (1) of section 6, shall be
entitled to use the land for the purpose for which such land
was put to use immediately before the date of the
notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3:
Provided that, such owner or occupier shall not after the
declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6-
(i) construct any building or any other structure;
(ii) construct or excavate any tank, well, reservoir or dam;
or
(iii) plant any tree, on the land.
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 15 2026:KER:46837
(2) The owner or occupier of the land under which any
pipeline has been laid shall not do any act or permit any
act to be done which will or is likely to cause any damage
in any manner whatsoever to the pipeline.
(3) Where the owner or occupier of the land with respect
to which a declaration has been made under sub-section
(1) of Section 6-
(a) constructs any building or any other structure,
or
(b) constructs or excavates any well, tank,
reservoir or dam, or
(c) plants any tree,
on that land, the Court of the District Judge within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situate may, on an
application made to it by the competent authority and after
holding such inquiry as it may deem fit, cause the building,
structure, reservoir, dam or tree to be removed or the well
or tank to be filled up, and the costs of such removal or
filling up shall be recoverable from such owner or occupier
in the same manner as if the order for the recovery of such
costs were a decree made by the Court.”
(underline supplied)
16. A reading of the provisions under Section 9 of Act 50
of 1962 would make it explicitly clear that after the declaration
made under sub-section (1) of Section 6 that the right of user in
land for laying the pipelines should be acquired, on being satisfied
that such land is required for laying any pipelines for the transport
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 16 2026:KER:46837
of petroleum or any mineral, the owner or occupier of the land
with respect to which such a declaration has been made, shall be
entitled to use the land for the purpose for which such land was
put to use immediately before the date of the notification under
sub-section (1) of Section 3. In view of the prohibition contained
in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9, such owner or
occupier shall not, after the declaration under sub-section (1) of
Section 6, construct any building or any other structure; or
construct or excavate any tank, well, reservoir or dam; or plant
any tree, on the land. As per the mandate of sub-section (2) of
Section 9, the owner or occupier of the land under which any
pipeline has been laid shall not do any act or permit any act to be
done which will or is likely to cause any damage in any manner
whatsoever to the pipeline.
17. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of Act 50 of 1962 deals
with a situation where the owner or occupier of the land, after the
declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6, constructs any
building or any other structure; constructs or excavates any tank,
well, reservoir or dam; or plants any tree, on the land. In which
event, on an application made by the Competent Authority to the
Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 17 2026:KER:46837
jurisdiction such land is situate, the said Court, after holding such
inquiry as it may deem fit, cause the building, structure, reservoir,
dam or tree to be removed or the well or tank to be filled up, and
the costs of such removal or filling up shall be recoverable from
such owner or occupier in the same manner as if the order for the
recovery of such costs were a decree made by the Court. A plain
reading of sub-section (3) of Section 9 would make it explicitly
clear that the inquiry contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 9
is an inquiry by the Court of the District Judge on an application
made by the Competent Authority, and not an inquiry by the
Competent Authority before making an application to the Court of
the District Judge.
18. Section 10 of Act 50 of 1962 deals with compensation.
As per sub-section (1) of Section 10, 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 Corporations, as the case may be, shall be
liable to pay compensation to such person for such damage, loss
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 18 2026:KER:46837
or injury, the amount of which shall be determined by the
Competent Authority in the first instance.
19. As per the provisions under Section 12 of Act 50 of
1962, the Competent Authority, for the purposes of the said Act,
shall have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the matters
enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). Section 12 reads thus;
“12. Competent authority to have certain powers of civil
court.- The competent authority shall have, for the
purposes of this Act, all the powers of a civil court while
trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in
respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of
any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any
document;
(c) reception of evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record from any
court or office;
(e) issuing commission for examination of
witnesses.” (underline supplied)
20. In view of the provisions under Section 12 of Act 50 of
1962, the Competent Authority, while hearing objections under
Section 5 of the Act, by any person interested in the land, made
within twenty-one days from the date of the notification under
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 19 2026:KER:46837sub-section (1) of Section 3; or determination of compensation
under Section 10, 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, shall have all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit
under the Code of Civil Procedure, in respect of the matters
enumerated in clauses (a) to (e) to Section 12.
21. As already found, the inquiry contemplated in sub-
section (3) of Section 9 is an inquiry by the Court of the District
Judge on an application made by the Competent Authority, and
not an inquiry by the Competent Authority before making an
application to the Court of the District Judge. Therefore, the
provisions under Section 12 have no application while the
Competent Authority, in exercise of its powers under sub-section
(3) of Section 9, makes an application to the Court of the District
Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is
situate, based on a proforma report made by GAIL, pointing out
that the owner or occupier of the land, after the declaration under
sub-section (1) of Section 6, has constructed any building or any
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 20 2026:KER:46837
other structure; constructed or excavated any tank, well, reservoir
or dam; or planted any tree, on such land.
22. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge
held that sub-section (3) of Section 9 of Act 50 of 1962 does not
authorise the Competent Authority to conduct an inquiry as to the
veracity of the allegations. On receipt of a proforma report, no
preliminary inquiry whatsoever by the Competent Authority is
contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 9, before an
application being made to the Court of the District Judge within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situate.
23. As already found, sub-section (3) of Section 9 of Act 50
of 1962 deals with a situation where the owner or occupier of the
land, after the declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6,
constructs any building or any other structure; constructs or
excavates any tank, well, reservoir or dam; or plants any tree, on
that land. In which event, the Competent Authority has to make
an application to the Court of the District Judge within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situate. On such
application, the said Court, after holding such inquiry as it may
deem fit, shall cause the building, structure, reservoir, dam or tree
to be removed or the well or tank to be filled up, and the costs of
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 21 2026:KER:46837
such removal or filling up shall be recoverable from such owner or
occupier.
24. The application to be made by the Competent Authority
to the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction such land is situate, invoking the provisions under sub-
section (3) of Section 9 of Act 50 of 1962, based on a proforma
report made by GAIL, shall contain facts and materials to prima
facie show that the owner or occupier of the land, after the
declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6, has constructed
any building or any other structure; constructed or excavated any
tank, well, reservoir or dam; or planted any tree, on such land, in
violation of the prohibition contained in the proviso to sub-section
(1) of Section 9.
25. In the instant case, in Ext.P8 proforma report in
W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025 and Ext.P6 proforma report in
W.P.(C)No.14191 of 2025, the year of construction is shown as
2010 and 2008 respectively, and the year of laying pipeline as
2018-19. Going by the averments in the writ petitions, the
declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of Act 50 of 1962
was published on 08.08.2013, and the pipeline was laid in the
property of the 2nd respondent during 2018-19. In the property of
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 22 2026:KER:46837
the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025, the objectionable
structures detected in the inspection conducted in December,
2023 are a toilet and shed and also extension of a sheet structure
over the pipeline. In the property of the 2nd respondent in
W.P.(C)No.14191 of 2025, the objectionable structure detected in
the inspection conducted in December, 2023 is a permanent
structure – car porch constructed in the area over the pipeline.
Before the learned Single Judge, the submission made by the
learned Standing Counsel for GAIL was that there occurred a
mistake while preparing the proforma reports. Instead of stating
the year of the objected construction, the year of the original
construction on the land was stated. Along with the writ petitions,
Mahazar and satellite imagery were produced to show that the
objected constructions were made after the declaration under sub-
section (1) of Section 6 of Act 50 of 1962. However, none of these
facts and materials was before the Competent Authority in Ext.P8
proforma report in W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025 and Ext.P6 proforma
report in W.P.(C)No.14191 of 2025. Both proforma reports do not
contain facts and materials to prima facie show that the 2nd
respondent in both writ petitions, who is the owner of the land,
made the objected construction(s) in violation of the prohibition
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 23 2026:KER:46837
contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9 of Act 50
of 1962.
26. Though no preliminary inquiry by the Competent
Authority is contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 9, into
the veracity of the allegations in a proforma report as to the
alleged construction, excavation, etc., the Competent Authority is
well within its powers to insist that a proforma report made by
GAIL shall necessarily contain facts and materials to prima facie
show that the owner or occupier of the land made such
construction, excavation, etc., in violation of the prohibition
contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9. Such facts
and materials shall necessarily form the basis of the application to
be made by the Competent Authority to the Court of the District
Judge. Since, absence of such facts and materials will be fatal to
an application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 9, the
Competent Authority is not expected to act as a ‘post office’, on
receipt of a proforma report made by GAIL, by merely making an
application to the Court of the District Judge, even without
satisfying itself that the proforma report contains such facts and
materials to make out a prima facie case.
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 24 2026:KER:46837
27. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we hold as
follows;
(i) A proforma report made by GAIL before the Competent
Authority to make an application to the Court of the District
Judge under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of Act 50 of 1962
shall contain facts and materials to prima facie show that
the owner or occupier of the land made such construction,
excavation, etc., in violation of the prohibition contained in
the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9;
(ii) The Inquiry contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section
9 is an inquiry by the Court of the District Judge on an
application made by the Competent Authority, and not an
inquiry by the Competent Authority before making an
application to the Court of the District Judge;
(iii) The provisions under Section 12 have no application
while the Competent Authority, in exercise of its powers
under sub-section (3) of Section 9, makes an application to
the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction such land is situate, based on a proforma
report made by GAIL;
(iv) Though no preliminary inquiry by the Competent
Authority is contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section
9, into the veracity of the allegations in a proforma report
as to the alleged construction, excavation, etc., the
Competent Authority is well within its powers to insist that
a proforma report made by GAIL shall necessarily contain
facts and materials to prima facie show such construction,
excavation, etc., in violation of the prohibition contained in
the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9;
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 25 2026:KER:46837
(v) In exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of Section
9, the Competent Authority can require GAIL to submit a
proper proforma report with such facts and materials, either
by way of correction/amendment or by filing a fresh
proforma report;
(vi) In addition to the plan/sketch with the details of the
construction, excavation, etc., made in violation of the
prohibition contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 9, the proforma report shall be supported by
satellite imagery and other materials to prima facie reveal
the objectionable construction, excavation or planting of any
tree, as enumerated in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (3)
of Section 9;
(vii) Since, absence of such facts and materials will be fatal
to an application filed under sub-section (3) of Section 9,
the Competent Authority is not expected to act as a ‘post
office’, on receipt of a proforma report made by GAIL, by
merely making an application to the Court of the District
Judge, even without satisfying itself that the proforma
report contains such facts and materials to make out a prima
facie case.
28. As already noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P8 proforma
report in W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025 and Ext.P6 proforma report in
W.P.(C)No.14191 of 2025 do not contain facts and materials to
prima facie show that the 2nd respondent in both writ petitions,
who is the owner of the land, made the objected construction in
violation of the prohibition contained in the proviso to sub-section
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 26 2026:KER:46837
(1) of Section 9 of Act 50 of 1962. Therefore, a mere correction of
the proforma reports as ordered by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment dated 03.12.2025 will serve the purpose.
In that view of the matter, the direction contained in the impugned
judgment for reconsideration of the proforma reports afresh, in
the light of the observations contained in the said judgment, after
giving liberty to GAIL to seek correction of the proforma reports
cannot be sustained.
In the above circumstances, these writ appeals are disposed
of by confirming the finding of the learned Single Judge that the
powers conferred on the Competent Authority under Section 12 of
Act 50 of 1962 will not enable the said Authority to conduct an
enquiry as to the veracity of the allegations in a proforma report
as to the alleged construction, excavation, etc., in violation of the
prohibition contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
9 and, therefore, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault
with in setting aside Ext.P11 communication dated 10.08.2024 in
W.P.(C)No.13664 of 2025 and Ext.P9 communication dated
10.08.2024 in W.P.(C)No.14191 of 2025 of the Competent
Authority. It is for GAIL to submit amended/fresh proforma reports
before the Competent Authority, taking note of the law laid down
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 27 2026:KER:46837
hereinbefore at paragraph 27, containing facts and materials,
including satellite imagery, to prima facie show that the 2nd
respondent in W.P.(C)Nos.13664 of 2025 and 14191 of 2025, who
is the owner of the land, made the objected construction(s) in
violation of the prohibition contained in the proviso to sub-section
(1) of Section 9 of Act 50 of 1962. The learned Additional Solicitor
General of India would submit that amended/fresh proforma
reports by GAIL shall be submitted before the Competent
Authority, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. Thereafter, it is for the Competent Authority to consider
those proforma reports and take necessary action, as per the
requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 9, taking note of the
law laid down hereinbefore at paragraph 27, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a further period of two months.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 28 2026:KER:46837
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 1 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 THE PERFORMA REPORT ISSUED BY THE
CORPORATION REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF ONE
ASHFAK IN KASARGOD DISTRICT AND THE
FINDING OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED
30.10.2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) A COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 1234/2024/RD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED, 29.05.2024
Exhibit R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE OF INDIA
NOTIFICATION NO. 2537 DATED 09.07.2024
Exhibit R1(c) A COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 1052/2025/RD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 29.04.2025
Exhibit R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE OF INDIA
NOTIFICATION NO. 2446 DATED 06.07.2025
Exhibit R1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.
GAIL/KKBMPL/KOCHI/HR/18895 DATED
28.05.2026
Annexure R1(a) A COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 1234/2024/RD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 29.05.2024
Annexure R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE OF INDIA
NOTIFICATION NO. 2537 DATED 09.07.2024
Annexure R1(c) A COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 1052/2025/RD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED, 29.04.2025
Annexure R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE OF INDIA
NOTIFICATION NO. 2446 DATED 06.06.2025
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 29 2026:KER:46837
Annexure R1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.
GAIL/KKBMPL/KOCHI/HR/18895 DATED
28.05.2026
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 30 2026:KER:46837
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 3227 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I THE PERFORMA REPORT ISSUED BY THE
CORPORATION REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF ONE
ASHFAK IN KASARGOD DISTRICT AND THE
FINDING OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED
30.10.2024
Annexure 2 COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE COMPLAINTS
REFERRED TO BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT COMPANY
ALLEGING VIOLATION OF SECTION 9(1) OF THE
ACT AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THIS
APPELLANT
Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT
FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AS REGARDS SERIAL
NO.1 IN ANNEXURE -2 VIZ. BHASKARAN
THOONERY
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED
04.03.2024 REGARDING PROPERTY OF
BHASKARAN FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA DATED
04.03.2024 REGARDING PROPERTY OF HARIS
FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure 6 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI
BHASKARAN, AFTER FINDING THAT THERE IS NO
VIOLATION OF SECTION 9(1) OF THE ACT
Annexure 7 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI HARIS,
AFTER FINDING THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION
OF SECTION 9(1) OF THE ACT
Annexure 8 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE
APPELLANT DATED 04.12.2024 SANCTIONING
COMPENSATION
W.A.Nos.3227 of 2025 & 1 of 2026 31 2026:KER:46837
Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION DATED
23.01.2026 FORWARDED BY APPELLANT TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) A COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 1234/2024/RD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED, 29.05.2024
Annexure R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE OF INDIA
NOTIFICATION NO. 2537 DATED 09.07.2024
Annexure R1(c) A COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO. 1052/2025/RD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED, 29.04.2025
Annexure R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE OF INDIA
NOTIFICATION NO. 2446 DATED 06.07.2025
Annexure R1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.
GAIL/KKBMPL/KOCHI/HR/18895 DATED
28.05.2026
