1. 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 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.

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 within 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 application 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.

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.

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 being 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, as 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- section (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.

                  (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 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 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 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 sub-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 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 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 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 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.

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;

                  (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 (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 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.